Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Cotton Growing

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans exist for the expanded growth of Empire cotton suitable for use in Lancashire.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): There is hope of increased production of American-type cotton in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, and two scientists on the staff of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation are at present visiting those countries. In East Africa there is room for expansion on new areas and for increased yields from existing areas by better methods of farming, increased use of fertilisers and the control of pests. Experiments in the use of fertilisers and insecticides are about to take place, and steps to open up new areas are now being considered.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the importance of substituting Empire for American cotton, is the Minister able to give any idea of the programme of production for the next four or five years?

Mr. Creech Jones: In present circumstances, I am not.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the Minister see that cotton users in Lancashire try to

use more Ugandan cotton, as there seems to be a considerable and not quite justified prejudice against it at present?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is true that Ugandan cotton is said to be too long for Lancashire's needs—at least, that is the prejudice.

Secondary Industries (Development)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is available for West African and other colonial peoples, who have the requisite training, and who desire to start small secondary industries in their colonial areas.

Mr. Creech Jones: Assistance by way of loans in suitable cases is available in Sierra Leone through the Development of Industries Board which was set up last December. In the Gold Coast, legislation has been introduced to set up an Industrial Development Corporation to assist in the development of secondary industries. Nigeria has a Local Development Board and legislation to enable it to make advances to individuals are under consideration. Guidance in the setting up of secondary industries by local people is also available from the Departments of Commerce and Industry which have now been set up in a number of Colonies.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that, in fact, whilst one Colony has already made advances, in Nigeria, the largest of the four, no advances, have been made; if so, could he say when those advances are likely to be available to suitable applicants?

Mr. Creech Jones: In the case of Nigeria a Department of Industry and Commerce has been set up, and is looking at the problem of the development of these industries.

Mr. Sorensen: But I take it that up to now no advances have been made?

Mr. Creech Jones: That, I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (RICE RATION)

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is yet possible to raise the rice ration in Malaya from 4½ oz. per day to which it was


lowered in May this year to bring it more into line with the ration in India and Japan.

Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that it is not yet possible to raise the rice ration in Malaya from its present level. The supply position has deteriorated considerably during the past few weeks for a variety of reasons, but principally because the exportable surplus of the main rice-growing countries in South-East Asia has not improved. Comparison with India and Japan is difficult owing to the many differences in administration.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister, who obviously shares everybody's disquietude at this very low ration in Malaya, try to re-examine the question to see that the disproportionate distribution to Japan is brought more into line with that of Malaya?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think the Japan rice ration is an ingredient in it, but I am terribly concerned about the position in Malaya and am doing all I can to get supplies there.

Mr. Gammans: Does the Minister's statement that the position is deteriorating mean that it may not be possible to keep the rice ration even at four and a half ounces?

Mr. Creech Jones: Not exactly. We had expectancies which, unfortunately, are not being realised at the moment, and we are turning in all possible directions to get supplies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Jewish Immigrants (Landing)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what disturbances among the Arab population of Palestine followed the landing of 200 Jewish immigrants who penetrated the naval blockade north of the Port of Haifa on 16th November; and how many casualties resulted.

Mr. Creech Jones: There were no Arab disturbances consequent upon this landing of illegal immigrants.

Dr. Segal: Does not this fact prove that the policy of His Majesty's Government in sending out 100,000 British troops to

Palestine, risking British lives and pouring out millions of pounds of British money, has been falsified by events, and that the majority of law-abiding Arab citizens in Palestine might even welcome a larger influx of Jewish immigration?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter of opinion. I am afraid I could not accept the conclusion of my hon. Friend.

British Forces (Withdrawal)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is proposed by the British Government in respect of funds at the disposal of the Palestine Government in connection with the withdrawal of British Forces from Palestine.

Mr. Creech Jones: These assets will be used to meet the liabilities of the Palestine Government.

Mr. Reid: Is it true that the British Government are appropriating some funds of the Palestine Government?

Mr. Creech Jones: Oh, no. That certainly is not the position. I think it will be appreciated that in the arrangements for winding up the administration in Palestine all these matters are highly complicated. They are now receiving our very close attention.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend then agree that this Question is only part of the very complicated questions that will follow upon the withdrawal from Palestine and the handing back of the mandate? Will he say that before these very complicated questions are settled—they obviously involve matters of policy—the House will be given an opportunity to hear a statement from the Minister, and to discuss it?

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope it will be possible to make a statement, but at the moment the whole problem is under consideration and this particular point is part of a much broader and more general policy.

State-owned Land (Proposed Sales)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Palestine Government has decided to advertise in Palestine newspapers inviting tenders for the purchase of 69 Government plots of state-owned land on the sea shore


near Haifa by private buyers; and whether he will give instructions to discontinue these proposed sales in view of the negotiations now proceeding in the U.N. on the disposal of Palestine Government assets, including state lands.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware that the Palestine Government has decided to sell certain state-owned land at Haifa, and I see no reason to intervene in the matter. So long as the present Palestine Government remains responsible for the administration of the country it must be free to act as it thinks best in the interests of the "inhabitants of the country.

Mr. Janner: But is my. right hon. Friend aware that a joint deputation of Arabs and Jews approached the municipality of Haifa to stop this outrageous thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Oh, yes—and that a protest is coming from the municipality to the Palestinian Government; and will he take that into consideration in advising the Palestine Administration? May I also ask my right hon. Friend at the same time why we are in such indecent haste, when the United Nations are themselves proposing to deal with these matters in a Commission shortly?

Mr. Creech Jones: This is not a hasty decision. This matter has been under consideration for some time, and it is imperative that the Palestine Government should realise certain of its assets.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister leave the till?

Mr. S. Silverman: If it is true, as alleged, that both Arabs and Jews have protested against this procedure, why does my right hon. Friend say that it is done in the interests of the people of the country?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have pointed out that this policy is being pursued in the best interests of the inhabitants generally, and it is the function of the Administration of Palestine to meet the somewhat difficult position in which it is at the moment.

Mr. Janner: But may I again appeal to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am entitled to appeal, surely? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision, in view of the fact

that Arabs and Jew's have sent this joint deputation and that they all want this stopped?

Mr. Creech Jones: Some Arabs and some Jews have made representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Rolling stock (Kongwa—Dar es Salaam)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ensure that rolling stock returning empty from Kongwa to Dar es Salaam is allowed to stop at intermediate stations long enough to pick up sisal, cotton and other commodities for which there is an immediate market inside and outside the sterling area.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have been informed by the Acting Governor of Tanganyika that only open wagons are returning empty from Kongwa towards Dar-es-Salaam. It is not considered advisable to load these wagons at private sidings on account of the risk of fire and consequent loss of scarce tarpaulins but they are being used to load sisal and grain from stations east of Kongwa.

Hospitals and Dispensaries, Uganda

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of Uganda's allocation of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund is it proposed to spend on hospital buildings; and whether he is satisfied that the sum could not be better spent in establishing dispensaries in outlying districts.

Mr. Creech Jones: In the Uganda Development Plan £1½ million is earmarked for medical and health services. It is essential to the training of African medical officers and to the efficiency of the dispensary system that a fully equipped central hospital should be established. Accordingly a grant of £477,500 has been approved from Uganda's territorial Colonial Development and Welfare allocation for the building of a new central teaching hospital at Mulago, Kampala. £100,000 is also provided for new hospital buildings, dispensaries and health centres.

Mr. Rankin: The emphasis in the Question is on buildings. Would my right hon.


Friend say if he realises that there is a feeling that these are show pieces and are absorbing money which might go more usefully to, say, dispensaries?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully alive to the dangers of a policy which places money on curative medicine, but obviously we must have a teaching hospital in East Africa if we are to train African doctors. At the same time, in the 10-year programme great emphasis is placed on preventive medicines and dispensaries and that kind of medical work.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Do the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has stated come to this, that nearly one third of the total expenditure on medical services is to take the form of one building, a central hospital at Kampala?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. It is the extension of the university proposals in East Africa. There must be a basic teaching hospital, and £477,000 has been allocated for that purpose.

Mr. Stanley: Will other East African Governments contribute, as this is part of the university proposals?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how useful temporary buildings are for hospital wards and how long they last—up to 50 years?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have complete sympathy with the view that too much money should not be spent on buildings.

Uganda Co-operative Movement

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken by the Government of Uganda to encourage the development of the Cooperative movement among Africans.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Government of Uganda enacted a Co-operative Societies Ordinance in 1946 and a Registrar of Cooperative societies has been appointed with a small staff. The Uganda Development Plan includes provision for an average annual expenditure of £10,000 on the development of Co-operation and £70,500 for non-recurrent expenditure.

Mr. Rankin: That is quite helpful, but will my right hon. Friend keep in mind, as I am sure he will, that there are two distinct sections here—the Indian traders who are not very interested in the Cooperative movement and also the growing vice of landlordism among the Africans themselves—and that the only people who can be helpful are the Government?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, but that hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the arrival of any white men in Uganda there was a developed economic system there, and is it not sometimes unwise to try to teach one's African grandmother to suck European eggs?

Corporal Punishment, Kenya

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a boy of 15 years of age was sentenced to 12 strokes for participating in the Uplands bacon factory riot in Kenya; that in August an African was sentenced to three years hard labour with 15 strokes for robbery with violence and that these cases are not isolated; and what steps are being taken by the Government of Kenya to reduce or abolish flogging.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am inquiring into the whole circumstances of these incidents and the use of corporal punishment in the case of young persons. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in possession of all the facts.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there seems to be no method of treating these young offenders, and will he see that some method similar to the Borstal system is introduced?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is in the Colonial Office a special advisory Committee concerned with juvenile delinquents and their prison organisation, and this matter is before them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: When the right hon. Gentleman is inquiring into this matter, will he also inquire whether those accused persons had a right of appeal, whether they were defended, whether they exercised the right of appeal, and by what authority they were flogged?

Mr. Creech Jones: I will keep it in mind.

Nurses and Doctors, West Africa

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, approximately, how many trained African nurses and doctors, respectively, and how many nursing trainees are working in West African Colonies at the present time.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the West African Governments for this information and will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive it.

Mr. Sorensen: Will that include some comparison between now and previous years, and also prospective possibilities?

Mr. Creech Jones: I will see if that can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTARIANS, NORTHERN IRELAND (TRANSFER)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the transfer of the Gibraltarians from Northern Ireland to London; and what are the reasons which are holding up this transfer.

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope to make a further announcement at a very early date about the possibility of transferring these people to London.

Sir W. Smiles: Are displaced persons from Europe now being given preference over British subjects from Gibraltar in the hostel accommodation in London? Also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no work for these Gibraltarians in the isolated camps in Northern Ireland where they are now living but that there is any amount of work for them in London?

Mr. Creech Jones: My own views about this are pretty well known. I am most anxious that the Gibraltar people shall be quartered in London and that as speedily as possible they shall be returned to the Colony, Some unexpected difficulties have just arisen and I am trying to clear them out of the way as quickly as possible.

Major Peter Roberts: May I ask whether the distress which is being

caused to the friends and relatives of these Gibraltarians back in Gibraltar can be allayed by a statement at the earliest opportunity—I am surprised that it cannot be made today—that accommodation can be provided in London, because the conditions in Northern Ireland are extremely unfavourable and unsatisfactory?

Mr. Creech Jones: I know about the conditions in Northern Ireland and I am desperately anxious that these people should be brought to London—

Major Roberts: How soon?

Mr. Creech Jones: —and am doing everything in my power to secure that end.

Sir Ronald Ross: How many of these unfortunate people are still left?

Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that 300 are on their way back to Gibraltar, or will be very shortly, and that will leave-about 1,000 over.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (IMPORTS, LIMITATION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if his attention has been drawn to the protests of the Barbados Chamber of Commerce that the cuts in imports imposed by the Colonial Office were made without any consultation in Barbados and are likely to cause hardship locally; and what action he is taking on the matter;
(2) what instructions have been issued to the Governments of the British West Indies regarding the limitation of imports to meet the dollar crisis; and what discussions took place between the Colonial Office and local elected governments, chambers of commerce and other similar bodies before these instructions were issued.

Mr. Creech Jones: The West Indian Governments, like all other Colonial Governments, were asked to collaborate with His Majesty's Government in economising to the utmost in the use of dollar exchange. No special local discussions took place prior to the issue of my telegrams containing broad administrative guidance on the subject. I have seen a Press report regarding a resolution passed


by the Barbados Chamber of Commerce in this connection, but have received no special protests from that body.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that there are duly and democratically elected governments in most of the islands today, will the Minister say whether or not those Governments were consulted before this decision was taken, or was it just imposed from London?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is continuous consultation with the respective Colonial Governments on matters of currency and exchange and when difficulties of a rather acute kind came to London we issued telegrams of broad guidance to the respective territories.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Minister answer my question? I am asking whether or not, before these cuts were made, the duly elected Governments were consulted and agreed, or whether they were just told that they had to do it?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have answered the question and I have said that there is frequent and continuous consultation with the Governors in matters of this kind and, further, that it was essential that a broad memorandum of guidance should be issued to the Governors in regard to their currency transactions in future.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Would not a shorter answer have been, "No, Sir"?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Intelligence Division (Pensioner Clerks)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will look into the position of pensioner clerks to staff officers employed in the Intelligence Division of his Department abroad, whose case for improved conditions of service and assimilation to the clerical class was submitted by the Director of Naval Intelligence in January, 1945, and to his Department by the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants in November, 1946; whether the principal grievances which relate to inadequate salary, absence of reasonable promotion advancement, compulsory service abroad for whole of civil service career and insufficient leave for visits home have now

been examined and when a decision will be reached, which is so important to these men, mostly long-service ex-members of the service.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The future of the grade of pensioner clerks to staff officers (Intelligence) depends upon the future of all pensioner clerks in Admiralty Service. This matter has been under consideration for a considerable time, but it requires consultation with other Government Departments and is one of many questions of pay and conditions of service requiring careful consideration in the postwar period. I am unable at present to state when a decision will be reached, but it will be expedited as much as possible. The present consideration covers all the pionts which have been raised by the staffs concerned.

Ships in Reserve (Airtight Covers)

Sir R. Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the American method of preserving ships in reserve by means of airtight covers of special material has been considered by the Admiralty; and with what result.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Yes, Sir; similar measures are being adopted for appropriate ships in the Royal Navy as the necessary equipment and material become available.

Sir R. Ross: Is this considered to be an advance on previous methods?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, I have seen it myself and think it is very successful.

Transferred Ships (U.S.S.R.)

Sir R. Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been made by the Soviet Government for the return of H.M.S. "Royal Sovereign" and U.S.S. "Milwaukee" under the terms on which they were lent.

Mr. Dugdale: The Naval Protocol to the Italian Peace Treaty signed on 10th February, 1947, lays down that the return of the U.S.S. "Milwaukee" and H.M.S. "Royal Sovereign" and other British warships shall, as far as possible,


be effected simultaneously with the transfer to the Soviet Union of the excess units of the Italian Fleet allocated to her. The arrangements for the transfer both of Italian ships to the Allies and of British and American warships from, the Soviet Union are being considered by a Four Power Naval Commission set up by the Protocol and now meeting in Rome.

Sir R. Ross: Has the Soviet Union taken analogous steps by freeing surplus Italian warships from being handed over to them, as have been taken by the United States and this country?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.

Anti-Slavery Measures, Red Sea and Persian Gulf

Dr. Segal: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ships and men of the Royal Navy were engaged on an anti-slavery patrol in the Red Sea during the years of the war; how many dhows engaged in this traffic were intercepted and with what results; and how far these naval operations have been curtailed since the war ended.

Mr. Dugdale: Anti-slavery patrols were suspended during the war. They have not yet been reinstituted, but the standing instructions for the Commanders-in-Chief of the Mediterranean and East Indies Stations impose upon them a general responsibility for the prevention of slaving in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Hogg: Would not a better place for anti-slavery patrols be the employment exchanges of this country?

Dr. Segal: Is the Minister aware that this barbarous traffic, involving the lives of many thousands of His Majesty's African subjects, still persists to this day, and can he give an assurance that the Royal Navy will be allowed to fulfil its traditional rôle in an effort to suppress it?

Mr. Dugdale: I must point out that the Royal Navy has a large number of rôles to fulfil, of which this is one, and it will certainly fulfil it as it does its other rôles.

Royal Marines (Discharges)

Mr. Medland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why refusal to allow men to buy themselves out of the Royal Marines is persisted in, when these men desire to go overseas to

take up lucrative appointments and business careers; and under what conditions men may buy themselves out of the Service.

Mr. Dugdale: With the reductions already made in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and those now in progress, the burden of maintaining efficiency devolves more and more on men serving on regular engagements. At present therefore it is practicable to release Royal Marines from their regular engagements only in cases where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances.

Mr. Medland: Will my hon. Friend please explain why it is that men are not allowed to buy themselves out now, when there are so many additional numbers in the Forces, whereas they could always do so between the wars when there were so few?

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Dugdale: I was simply waiting for the next question; I am perfectly prepared to answer. At present we are engaged in building up the regular strength of the Royal Navy and, until that is completed, it is difficult to give discharges as often as we would like. I hope, naturally, that as that strength is built up we shall be able to give discharges more frequently than we can now.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that some of the men concerned are finding difficulty in making the necessary payment, would my hon. Friend allow them to make the payment out of the bounty money which is due to them?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend really think it helps regular recruiting to the Navy and other Services if men know that once they have taken a regular engagement there is no way they can get out of it, no matter what their circumstances may be?

Mr. Dugdale: That is not true. They can, in fact, in exceptional compassionate circumstances, but I do not consider that the circumstance mentioned by my hon. Friend here—that the men concerned wish to take up "lucrative appointments and business careers"—is an exceptional compassionate circumstance.

Mr. Medland: Will my hon. Friend please inform us whether these facilities will be granted this month, next month, this year, next year or never?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I can only say it will be done as soon as possible.

Shipbreaking

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the serious shortage of scrap iron in the country; and if he will accelerate the process of breaking up the warships now scheduled for this purpose.

Mr. W. Edwards: Yes, Sir: and every endeavour is being made to ensure that there is no avoidable delay in handing over to the ship-breakers ships scheduled for breaking up.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the serious shortage of steel for municipal houses and ploughshares, will the Minister consider adding a few more obsolete battleships to those to be scrapped?

Mr. Edwards: We are considering that now actually, but I can inform my hon. Friend that more ships have been handed over to the ship-breakers than they have been able to break.

Mediterranean Fleet (Strength)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whether any ships have been withdrawn from the Mediterranean since 27th October.

Mr. Dugdale: There is nothing I can add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 23rd October last, that the Mediterranean Fleet is being maintained virtually at full strength.

Cordite Factory, Holton (Electric Current)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present capacity of the electricity generating station at the Royal Naval Cordite Factory at Holton Heath; and when will this be connected with the grid in order to supply current at peak periods, and at other times.

Mr. W. Edwards: The total capacity of the electric generating plant at the R.N. cordite factory at Holton Heath is 3,000

kilowatts. Sympathetic consideration will be given to its being used to assist in the supply of electric current at peak periods and other times, should the appropriate electricity supply authority consider this assistance necessary.

Colonel Wheatley: Will the Minister be able to arrange for this help to be given before the winter comes?

Mr. Edwards: We are quite ready to consider it at any date now, if the supply authority requests it.

Mr. Frank Byers: Have the Government approached the electricity authority to find out any further information about this matter, or must we wait for them to take the initiative?

Mr. Edwards: We have close contact with the local electricity supply authority, and also contacts with our own electricity suppliers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Petrol Economies

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Postmaster-General what instructions he has issued to the transport section of his Department regarding economy in petrol; and what is his estimated annual saving as a result.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): Instructions have been issued that petrol consumption by Post Office vehicles must be cut to a minimum consistent with the needs of the public service, the target being an overall 10 per cent. reduction. I regret that I am not at present in a position to say whether this target will be achieved, as the bulk of post office vehicles are engaged on operational work, and the scope for economy is accordingly limited unless the services are curtailed.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the efforts made, the results obtained, and the savings achieved in the various Government Departments which I have questioned on this subject, can the hon. Gentleman say when it is anticipated that the basic ration will be restored?

Mr. Hobson: That is a question that might well be addressed to the appropriate Minister.

Food Parcels, Cleethorpes (Service)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General, why small food parcels from Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, to Gillingham, Kent, which are sent express post, are taking three, and sometimes four, days to be delivered; and what steps he will take to expedite the service.

Mr. Hobson: The time is excessive, and I much regret the inconvenience and annoyance caused by the delays which have occurred. The service for parcel mails between the towns named has been re-arranged, and I hope there will be no further cause for complaint.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that perishable foodstuffs have gone bad on the way in this short journey, will the Minister put the necessary ginger into the Department concerned?

Mr. Hobson: That has already been done, and there have been only three complaints.

Telephone Installations

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General how many telephones have been installed, respectively, in the Bolton and Farnworth districts during the last three months; and how many installations it is estimated will be made during the next three months.

Mr. Hobson: During the past three months, 289 new telephones have been provided in the area served by the Bolton exchange, and 26 in the Farnworth area. It is expected that the figures for the next three months will be 200 and 26, respectively.

Mr. J. Lewis: Is it possible to ensure that organisations responsible for the public services, like hotels and some business organisations, will have priority?

Mr. Hobson: That is the usual policy of the Department; they are among the people who have priority.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Postmaster-General what number of new telephones have been installed throughout the country during the year ended 31st July, 1947.

Mr. Hobson: The number of new telephones installed during the year ended 31st July, 1947, was 685,243.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend tell me how that figure compares with the number of telephones installed during the years 1937 and 1938?

Mr. Hobson: Not without notice, but I can give my hon. Friend the number of telephones installed in the peak year of installation before the war. In 1936–37 it was 400,581.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not that answer provide further evidence of the great achievements of His Majesty's present Government?

Mr. Hobson: It might be the case that sometimes we hide our light under a bushel.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Postmaster-General what was the number of applicants for telephones on the Mount-view and Tudor exchanges on 1st November; and what were the corresponding figures for 1st January, 1947.

Mr. Hobson: On 1st November the applicants waiting for service on the Mountview and Tudor exchanges numbered 1,307 and 1,028 respectively. The corresponding figures for the 1st January were 1,234 and 947.

Mr. Gammans: When does the hon. Gentleman think that people who put down their names for telephones on these two exchanges will be likely to get them?

Mr. Hobson: The answer is that the same applies at all other telephone exchanges; when we have the cable and materials available.

Captain John Crowder: Meanwhile, will the Minister do something about the lack of staff on the Tudor exchange, because it is really quicker to send a post card than to telephone in that district?

Mr. Hobson: That is another question entirely, and if the hon. and gallant Member cares to put it down, we will look into the matter.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Postmaster-General why, when a tenant gives up occupation of a house, the telephone service is discontinued and the new tenant has to waft his or her turn for afresh installation.

Mr. Hobson: An incoming tenant is normally allowed to take over the existing


telephone. Only where there are waiting applicants with stronger claims is the line diverted for the use of the senior applicant.

Mr. Bossom: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is regularly taking place in Kent, and is it not an utter waste of labour to take out a telephone and then later to have to put it back again? It is wrong and ridiculous.

Mr. Hobson: Our usual practice is to allow an incoming tenant who requires it to have a telephone which is there—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but in cases where there are priority applications and people who have been waiting for many years it is manifestly unfair to make that an invariable practice.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Who is the judge of priority?

Mr. Johnson-Hicks: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he considers "abnormal," and whether there are any normal cases at the present time?

Mr. Hobson: There are. As a matter of fact, we have transferred 106,000 telephones to incoming tenants during the past 12 months, but where there is a shortage of spare wires in the cables, it would, as I said, be unfair not to give consideration to those who have been waiting for many years.

Royal Wedding (Commemorative Stamps)

Dr. Segal: asked the Postmaster-General why no special stamp has been issued to commemorate the Royal Wedding.

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Postmaster-General why no special issue of postage stamps to commemorate the Royal Wedding has been made.

Mr. Hobson: Much to my regret, the time available between the announcement and the date of the wedding did not suffice for the design, printing and issue of a special postage stamp worthy of the occasion, but a special commemorative cancellation mark, which the hon. Members have no doubt seen, was designed and brought into use throughout the United Kingdom.

Dr. Segal: How was it possible for the Dominions, which are many thousands of

miles away from the scene of this celebration, to find time to issue commemorative stamps. whereas all our own Post Office found time to do was to get itself tied up in knots over this matter?

Mr. Hobson: The Dominions and Great Britain are not comparable in this matter. Their requirements in the number of stamps are considerably different from ours. We require 350 million stamps, and they take a long time to print.

Dr. Segal: Is not this another instance of the almost total lack of imagination shown by the Post Office?

Mr. Hobson: No, it takes approximately nine months to design, print, and have in circulation a postage stamp—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—under the procedure usually adopted by the Department. The design of the stamp alone takes three months, and then it has to be submitted to His Majesty the King.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my hon. Friend consider that it is still not too late—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]—to take action as desired by the questioner? May I have an answer?

Mr. Hobson: Put that question down, and we will have a look at it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to issue a commemorative stamp for the recent Royal Wedding.

Mr. Hobson: No, Sir. A commemorative cancellation mark specially designed for the occasion is already in use throughout the United Kingdom. Much to my regret, the time available between the announcement and the date of the wedding did not suffice for the design, printing and issue of a special postage stamp worthy of the occasion.

Annual Report

Mr. Harry Wallace: asked the Postmaster-General when he will restore the practice of issuing the Postmaster-General's Annual Report on the business of the Post Office.

Mr. Hobson: The Postmaster-General's. Annual Report was last issued for the year 1915–16. Much of the information formerly given in the Report has been incorporated in the Commercial Accounts of the Post Office, the publication of which will


be resumed with the accounts for 1947–48. In these circustances, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by reviving the Annual Report.

Mr. Wallace: While I thank my hon. Friend for his announcement that the publication of the commercial accounts is to be resumed, may I ask him if he will look at this question again, because an examination of the contents of the Postmaster-General's Annual Report would show that much information useful to the public was given in that Report, and it afforded information to this House, which I do not think the commercial accounts would convey?

Mr. Hobson: We would be prepared to look at that, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Postmaster-General's Report has not been published since 1915–16, and if it was not found necessary in the interwar years, I doubt whether it would be found necessary now

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend is mistaken in believing that there has been no protest about publication of this Report. There is a widespread demand for the resumption of publication of this Report, and in the changed circumstances I feel that publication of such a Report becomes necessary.

Mr. Hogg: Would not the right hon. Gentleman's Report read, "Could do better"?

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member has already had that answered in a reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge).

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (FISHERIES DEPARTMENT)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider appointing a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to deal, with fisheries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great burden which the Minister of Agriculture has on his shoulders at the present moment, and will he not reconsider this matter, having regard to the vital importance of the fishing industry?

The Prime Minister: The matter has, of course, often been considered. I remember this question arising many years ago. On the whole, I do not think there would be justification for appointing another Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take full responsibility and while I quite realise the importance of the fishing industry, I think we can have far too many Ministers

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Prime Minister consider this matter, because in these days of shortages of food, more and more depends on getting more fish from the sea in order to supplement our existing rations?

The Prime Minister: I quite realise the importance of that but it is a non sequitur to suggest that we should get that result by appointing another Parliamentary Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Illiteracy

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Defence what is the percentage of semi-illiterates found in the three Services out of the monthly call-up.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): There is in practice no accepted definition of a semi-illiterate. Of the current intake into the Army about 50 men each fortnight have to be sent as illiterate to special elementary education courses and about 50 others who are also in need of such courses. Together this is about 2 per cent. of the present intake. The problem is not arising at present in the case of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Shepherd: How can the Minister explain this position in view of the great expenditure on education services? Does he think that this has anything to do with the return of the Government at the last Election?

Mr. Alexander: I should have thought that the state of education of men of 18 has not much to do with the return of the Government in 1945. I have no doubt that in later years some of them suffered severely as a result of a break in educational arrangements during the war. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will


get a more detailed answer if he addresses a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.

Strengths

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence when he expects to be able to announce target strengths of volunteers for the three Services.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his Question on 12th November.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not about time that some target figures, if only of a temporary nature, were stated, in view of the fact that the Minister must know the rate of call-up and demobilisation during the next year? Would it not assist the recruiting campaign to give target figures up to the middle of next year?

Mr. Alexander: It would be inadvisable to give really firm figures to the House in advance of the recommendations of the military authorities on the long-term programme.

Mr. Keeling: As the right hon. Gentleman let the expression "target strength" pass, will he say what it means? Is it the same as establishments, or is it something different?

Mr. Alexander: What I think my hon. Friend had in mind was the actual figure of men to be aimed at as a general standing strength of the Regular Forces in each case.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Dried Fruit (Christmas Puddings)

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that the figures for the importation of dried fruit necessary for making Christmas puddings will not fall below those of last year.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The allocations of dried fruit for Christmas made in October and November were a little less than last year because of the loss of fruit from dollar sources.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister give an assurance that dried fruit from dollar sources will not be treated in the same

way as sugar, and held in a sort of dollar purgatory, where no one can use it?

Mr. Strachey: Actually the dried fruit allocation this year was over 90 per cent. of that of last year, and considering that we had to do without supplies from dollar sources altogether, I do not think that which was secured from non-dollar sources was a bad result.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister, when he is looking after Christmas puddings for England, not forget Christmas buns for the Scottish New Year?

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many people did not get any dried fruit allocation during October, and is anything to be done in order to make up that loss to them?

Mr. Strachey: As I say, we have distributed, this autumn, over 90 per cent. of the quantity of dried fruit which was distributed last year. That is all we have got.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the purchase of dried fruit from non-dollar countries?

Mr. Strachey: Yes. My hon. Friend may be sure that we have only been able to get up to 90 per cent. of last year's supply by greatly increasing our non-dollar purchases.

Sugar Imports

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food what imports of sugar from the Dutch East Indies he anticipates making in the next twelve months; and whether, in view of the great services rendered to the Dutch Government in the Netherlands East Indies and to the Netherlands East Indian Government, he will give an assurance that this country will obtain its fair share of sugar and other produce from this source.

Mr. Strachey: Owing to hostilities in the Dutch East Indies no sugar has so far become available for export and unless this situation is remedied it is unlikely that there will be any substantial quantities during the next twelve months.

Imports, Scottish Ports

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of Scotland's


share in bulk-bought food imports is discharged at Scottish ports and what proportion transferred from English ports by rail; and whether he will take steps to see that the latter is reduced to a minimum so that Scotland's prewar activity in dealing with food cargoes is as far as possible restored.

Mr. Strachey: The information will take some little time to procure. I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Major Lloyd: While the right hon. Gentleman is procuring that information, will he be quite sure to ascertain the great indignation which presently prevails on the Clyde and in other Scottish ports about this situation? Will he make inquiries on the Clyde?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think that the information will confirm the implication of the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Subsidies

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Food the annual cost of administering the food subsidies.

Mr. Strachey: In the great majority of cases food subsidies are provided by sales at prices below the purchase cost. Apart from the welfare foods, milk in schools and national milk schemes no appreciable extra administrative expense is involved.

Mr. Shephard: Could not the Minister answer the Question? What is the cost of administering the food subsidies?

Mr. Strachey: As I have just said, there is no appreciable cost in administering the food subsidies themselves. It is simply the sale of the food at a lower price than that at which it has been purchased. The difference is the subsidy, not the administrative cost of the subsidy.

Mr. Shephard: Surely, the Minister must know what that figure is?

Mr. Strachey: It is nil, if the hon. Member wishes to have it put like that.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that. the Minister of Food believes in the profit motive, and that, in fact, the consumer pays?

Rations (Calorific Value)

Mr. S. Shephard: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the daily calorific

value in detail of rationed foods other than points foods for an adult person.

Mr. Strachey: Details for all rationed foods were given in the answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on nth November, and to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) on 12th November.

Potatoes

Sir R. Ross: asked the Minister of Food whether his regulations permit those who grow potatoes on allotments or their own land or gardens to send them as gifts to friends and relations.

Mr. Strachey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to this matter. The Order as drawn, while it does not prohibit such gifts, seeks to limit them unduly. I shall amend the Order permitting genuine gifts at any rate up to a reasonable amount.

Sir R. Ross: Does that apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an assurance that potato rations can be maintained at the present scale until the end of May, 1948.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot give assurances until I have received the result of the census of potato stocks and until we know what imports we can secure.

Mr. Butcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will move as speedily as possible in this matter?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but we may not know what imports we can secure for some considerable time.

Air-Commodore Harvey: How long?

Mr. Strachey: Quite possibly not until next year.

Flour, Grimsby (Condition)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food on what date the full explanation about the bad and fusty flour was sent by his Department to the Grimsby and District Bakery Trade Association; why this information was not given to the House; and if he will now publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Strachey: An explanation was given as soon as our inquiries were completed On 24th November. I will publish the text of the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The fustiness was caused by some of the wheat which was delivered to the millers coming into contact with wheat damaged by timber in the hold of the importing ships. Steps have been taken to ensure that in future wheat tainted in this way is not mixed with the wheat delivered to millers.

Mr. Osborne: Do I understand from that answer that the reply was sent on the 24th, the day I put my Question down, so that the Minister had not carried out the undertaking he gave to the House to give that information? Why did he want to hide it from us?

Mr. Strachey: There is not the slightest suggestion of wishing to hide it. That is the full explanation, and the hon. Member will see the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the letter:

The Ministry of Food.

Portman Court,

W. I.

24th November, 1947

DEAR SIR,

You wrote to Mr. Osborne, M.P., on 1st November about supplies of fusty flour which were received from millers by the bakers in your district.

As a result of enquiries which have been made I. find that some of the wheat from which the flour was milled had been shipped from Canada under a load of timber. The grain which had been in contact with the timber was set aside as unfit for human Consumption, but the wheat delivered to the millers contained a small percentage of grain which, although it had not been in contact with the timber, carried to some extent the odour of timber. I have to express my regret that the proportion of slightly tainted wheat included in the supplies delivered to millers was sufficient to affect the quality of the flour, and to inform you that steps have been taken to ensure that in future wheat which may have been tainted in this way is not mixed with the wheat delivered to the millers.

Yours faithfully,

T. F. SKILTON,

Director of Cereal Products.

The Secretary,

Grimsby, Cleethorpes and District Baking Trade Association,

178, Freeman Street, Grimsby.

Vitamins (Children)

Lady Grant: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that the latest uptake figures for orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets, are only

41 per cent., 33 per cent. and 35 per cent., respectively, he will now consider making these welfare foods available to children over 5 on their tea ration.

Mr. Strachey: As orange juice costs dollars, I am afraid that I cannot at present extend the class of beneficiaries. Cod liver oil and vitamin tablets may be obtained by anyone through the ordinary retail channels.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Are there not many sources of orange juice which are not of the dollar area?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but those are used to the full already.

Glucose

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Food why the quality of glucose, supplied by the Ministry of Food to manufacturers of sweetmeats, has deteriorated recently; and what is being done to provide the proper quality of glucose.

Mr. Strachey: My Department does not supply glucose direct, but allocates the raw material to manufacturers. Owing to currency difficulties not all of the starch allocated recently has been of the types which produce the highest quality glucose, but everything possible will be done to provide the best kinds of starch available.

Australian Canned Bacon

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there are thousands of cases of tinned rasher bacon lying in the stores in Australia; and if he will arrange for this to be brought to this country to supplement the bacon ration.

Mr. Strachey: The Australian Government are selling us a quantity of canned meats, including canned bacon, which is surplus to their requirements. I cannot say as yet how we shall distribute it.

Imports from America

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food what information he has obtained as to the quantities of exportable bacon, sugar and dried eggs, to which his attention has been drawn, available in America.

Mr. Strachey: As dollars cannot be provided for the purchase of these foodstuffs, I have not taken any steps to buy what exportable supplies of bacon, sugar and dried eggs may be available in the U.S.A.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Minister give some approximate idea of the quantities which would be available if he had the dollars with which to purchase them?

Consumption Levels (Wastage)

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what is the percentage allowed as food wastage when calculating that the average calorie intake today is 2,700 calories.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the report on "Food Consumption Levels in the United Kingdom" (Cmd. 7203), and in particular to Appendix A where the question of wastage is dealt with. Wastage has already been excluded from the figures.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that at Gravesend yesterday canvassers for the Conservative candidate were offering rump steaks for breakfast if the Conservative was elected, and is the wastage—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that matter arises from this Question.

Mr. Gallacher: They knew that they would not have to meet that promise.

Fruit and Vegetable Organisation

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Food the composition of the new Fruit and Vegetable (Marketing and Distribution) Organisation, and also whether Clause 4 of its terms of reference will enable it to advise in the matter of price control.

Mr. Strachey: The new Fruit and Vegetable Organisation consists of representatives of the Agricultural Departments and the Ministry of Food. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary of my Ministry, is Chairman of the Organisation. As I explained in the House on 19th November, in reply to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), price control is a function of the Ministry of Food and not of this organisation.

Mr. Chamberlain: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Parliamentary Secretary gave exactly the opposite answer on 3rd November, reported in col. 1324 in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and

does he not realise that by this exclusion he is making elaborate regulations for the shadow and missing the substance?

Mr. Strachey: Price control must be dealt with by the Ministry of Food as such, and not by any separate organisation.

Executive Officer (Dismissal)

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the concern caused in the Forest of Dean by the dismissal of Mr. G. F. Bell, the Food Executive Officer in the Lydney Rural District since 1939; and whether he will consent to an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal.

Mr. Strachey: I regret the loss of Mr. Bell's services, but as he refused to carry out instructions there was no option but to terminate his appointment. The facts were fully considered by senior officers of my Department before the decision was taken. I am satisfied that there case for an inquiry.

Mr. Philips Price: In view of the strong feeling locally, will the Minister again consider holding this inquiry?

Mr. Strachey: We examined the matter very carefully in the Department. I have seen all the correspondence myself. I cannot go further than that.

Sir W. Smithers: Has Mr. Bell any right of appeal and, if so, to whom?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Cakes and Flour Confectionery

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Food if cake manufacturers are free to allocate their products as they wish, or do retailers receive an allocation of cake in proportion to their 1939 trade with the manufacturers and the total ingredients granted to them.

Mr. Strachey: Manufacturers of cakes and flour confectionery are free to sell their products to whom they wish, but as allocations of rationed ingredients are based on trade in 1939, I expect them to treat their prewar customers fairly and to have regard to equitable distribution of their products.

Profit and Loss Account

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will state in convenient


categories of food the profit and loss account of all his dealings in food including overhead costs since July, 1945.

Mr. Strachey: The Trading Accounts of my Ministry for the year to 31st March, 1947, will be published shortly. They will include comparative figures for the year to 31st March, 1946, and should provide the hon. Member with the information he wants in very considerable detail.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the figures show that the Minister's Department works at a profit or a loss?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, the figures will show, as I explained in the statement on my Estimates, that it works at a loss, roughly by the amount of the food subsidies.

Millk

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that many milk retailers are now operating at a loss owing to increased costs and reduced sales; and if he will now agree to receive a deputation in accordance with the request made to him on 30th October by the National Dairymen's Association.

Mr. Strachey: I am aware that many milk retailers are complaining that they have difficulty in carrying on at the present time owing to increasing costs and reduced sales. I have agreed to receive a deputation from the Central Milk Distributive Committee (on which the National Dairymen's Association is represented) and the National Farmers' Union tomorrow.

Eire (Trade Agreement)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he has now been able to arrange for the required supplies of agricultural machinery and fertilizers to be sent to Eire, to fulfil the terms of the trade agreement, so that Eire will no longer find it necessary to ship cattle to Belgium in order to obtain essential supplies; and if he will state the prospective extra tonnage of meat that will be obtained for this country.

Mr. Strachey: The higher prices we have offered should result in increased supplies of cattle and meat coming to the United Kingdom from Eire, but I am unable to give any estimate of the quantity at this stage. The other matters raised in the

question were covered in the statement issued on 13th November, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Hurd: Surely, the Minister realises that, in conditions today, it is not merely pounds that Eire wants, but things that Belgium has been supplying, like basic slag and other essential requirements. Are we going to provide these?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member will read the statement, I think he will see a great deal of information of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT WINE (IMPORTATION)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Food how many pints of port wine were bought, and at what cost, by this country from Portugal in the first nine months of 1939 and 1947. respectively.

Mr. Strachey: Some 3 million gallons of wine in cask valued at £890,000 were imported from Portugal in the first nine months of 1939. The comparable figures for the first nine months of 1947 are 2 million gallons, valued at £1,576,000. Nearly all was port wine.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the drying up of the stores of this particular commodity during the war years, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this importation was sufficient for the needs of the public?

Mr. Strachey: We should like to have more port, but as the hon. Member will see, it is a very expensive commodity at the moment.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of this trade in Portugal is in British hands?

Mr. Strachey: That does not mean that we do not have to pay high prices for it.

Mr. James Hudson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that large amounts of fruit could have been obtained in Portugal? Could not shipping space and money have been used for this rather than the wine?

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. ANDREW'S DAY MEETINGS (SPEAKERS)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is by his authority that the


Press Office, St. Andrew's House, has issued a statement giving complete details of six meetings on St. Andrew's Day, to be provided with a programme of songs and documentary films, under the heading "Scotland's answer to present social and economic problems," and to be addressed by a series of Socialist speakers only; and whether members of the other political parties were invited to take part in these meetings.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Since their inception in 1942, St. Andrew's Day meetings, held under the auspices of the Scottish Information Office, have been made the occasion of authoritative pronouncements on Scottish Departmental affairs. This year similar arrangements have, with my concurrence, been made. The addresses, under the general theme of "Scotland and the Crisis," will deal with the work of the Health and Agricultural Departments, the Tourist Board and the Board for Industry, and I propose myself to make a general survey of Scottish affairs. As on previous occasions, the substance of all the addresses will be factual and have no party character. Since the invitations were for speakers speaking authoritatively for public activities in industry and Government, it would have been difficult to invite party speakers as such on this occasion.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely, the Secretary of State realises how very inadvisable it is that a series of speeches on these important subjects should be given by Members of one political party only, and, while not denying the need for authoritative speakers on these matters, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that his own Parliamentary Private Secretary is a greater authority on these matters than, let us say, Sir Archibald Sinclair?

Mr. Woodburn: The only point there is that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, though not a member of the Government, has clearly been so associated with the Government that he can be asked to speak at such a meeting on the factual work of the Department. I agree at once with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that the programmes, taken together, may appear to have the aspect which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman places upon them, and I thank him

for giving me the opportunity for making quite clear that there is no party political character about these meetings.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think that goes far enough. The Secretary of State may wish to avoid it now, but he cannot deny, surely, that the complexion of the programme can have only one interpretation? May I ask him, further, since the speeches are to be delivered at the public expense, whether he is prepared to have a copy of each of them placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that the brightness of meetings depends upon speaking, and not necessarily on reading from briefs, and I hope he will not insist on all public meetings being turned into delegations with somebody reading entirely from a brief. I have no doubt that the public Press and the gentlemen who are taking the Chair, among them the Lord Provost and people from other political parties, will note what has been said. I can assure him that these meetings are factual, and carry on a tradition of previous Governments. In 1944, for example, these meetings were held without one Socialist being on the platform, although there was a Coalition Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister's answer has made it still more necessary that an authoritative report of the speeches at these meetings should be taken and should be laid on the Library Table. The very fact that the Minister has just said, in justifying them, that these speeches will be factual statements delivered by the speakers without notes on these very important matters—[Interruption.] I have no intention whatever of being shouted down by hon. Members opposite. The Secretary of State is spending public money on the National Day of Scotland, and these addresses are to be given by members of one political party only. I ask him to consider what would be the view of himself or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends if, on St. George's Day in England, a series of speeches, at the public expense and delivered only by prominent Tory speakers, had been authorised.

Mr. Woodburn: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. The


persons invited are not invited there because of any party political opinions which they hold. They have been invited there because they hold public offices of one kind or another and represent the public duty. For instance, the Chairman of the Regional Board will be there to represent the production side of industry and that aspect of these matters. When hon. Members opposite talk about the question of helping in the production drive, I can assure the right hon. and

gallant Gentleman that, if he and his colleagues are willing to help in the production drive, we shall welcome their co-operation at any time.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the Minister say that this is part of the system of cheerful little parties, which was recommended by the former. Minister for Economic Affairs, and does he think that a diet of exclusive Socialist fare is likely to lead to a cheery atmosphere on St. Andrew's Day?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (ABSENCE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
That, during the absence of the Deputy-Chairman, owing to temporary indisposition, the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) shall be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy-Chairman, including his powers as Deputy-Speaker.
I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the subject matter of this Motion, gives his consent thereto.
Ordinarily, notice would have been given of this Motion, but these circumstances are exceptional. I regret to inform the House that the Deputy-Chairman is unable to perform his duties owing to his illness, which I hope will be only temporary. It was hoped that he would have been well enough to be able to come here today. As the House will be aware, Mr. Speaker is on an official visit to Paris, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House for me to propose this Motion to enable the hon. Member for Newton to act as Deputy-Chairman, which he has kindly consented to do if the House accepts the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think, perhaps, I ought to say that such a Motion ought not to be regarded as a precedent, as it is usual to give notice, but the circumstances are exceptional.

Orders of the Day — CEYLON INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

[Changed from Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill]

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Permanent enactment of certain Defence Regulations.)

3.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(2) Section two hundred and fifty-one of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (which provides for the maintenance in London of the General Register and Record Office of Seamen, and was modified by an order made under Regulation eighty-six of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, so as to enable the said Office to be removed to Cardiff) shall have effect as if the words' in the port of London' were omitted and for the words' any of the outports' there were substituted the words any port'.
This is a slightly complicated matter which was brought to our notice during the Committee stage, and perhaps I ought to explain what it is all about. When our forebears passed the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, they did not have the same regard to the mutability of human affairs that we have today, and they prescribed, in Section 251 of that Act, that the General Register and Record Office of Seamen should be maintained in the Port of London, and wrote into the Act the words "in the Port of London." They had not heard of evacuation in those days. At the beginning of the 1939 war a Defence Regulation was made under which an Order was made giving authority to move this office to Cardiff. Of course, it had to be done by way of Defence Regulation in order to overcome the provisions in the original Act which said that it must be kept in London.
As I explained in Committee, Defence Regulation 86 was revoked in May, 1945,


but the revoking order contained a saving for those orders which had already been made under it, so that we might continue to have the General Register at Cardiff. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out that Defence Regulation 86 had, in fact, disappeared, and it was, of course left in a rather obscure state. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was quick to seize on that in the comments that he made. We have now tried permanently to amend the wording of the original Act, which said that this office must be maintained in the Port of London, by putting down this Amendment to Clause 2 which has the effect of amending Section 251 of the original Act. The amended Clause 251 of the Merchant Shipping Act will now read:
There shall be maintained under the control of the Board of Trade, an office, called the General Register and Record Office of Seamen.
It leaves out the words, "in the port of London." There may well be objections to putting this Amendment into Clause 2; there would be equal, and, perhaps, graver objections to putting it into the Second Schedule. Whatever we do, someone could probably say that we should have done something else. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Daventry and to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames who brought this to our notice. I hope the House will agree that we have done the best thing we can to keep the record straight.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In moving this Amendment, the hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that we on this side of the House were quite right in the Committee stage in saying that this Bill, as originally entitled, was wrongly named, because this Amendment makes it quite clear that this is really a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. As to the merits of the Amendment, we on this side of the House welcome it for a number of reasons. The first is that, as I understand it, this Amendment will enable us to dispense with another of the Defence Regulations, one which, in fact, it was extremely difficult to find anywhere at all, but which was, for some purposes, in existence. I do not think it is necessary to take up any more time in discussing

this Amendment except to say that much time might have been saved in Committee if consideration had been given to the point then, and our suggestion with regard to it adopted at that time.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you moved very quickly in calling the Amendment just disposed of. On the Committee stage there was an Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, to leave out lines 10 to 16. When that was being debated, the Home Secretary said he would consider the points raised. We debated the inclusion of those lines in connection with a particular regulation contained in the Schedule. I merely raise this point of Order in the hope that the fact that you have not selected that Amendment will not prevent us from hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say at a later stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and learned Gentleman will have his opportunity on Third Reading.

FIRST SCHEDULE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 43.
This is consequential on the previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third lime."

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think we ought to have some statement from the Home Secretary with regard to Defence Regulation 16. Although I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the letter he has written to me upon the point, I think that other hon. Members who are interested in the subject are entitled to know the reasons why this Defence Regulation is retained. It is a regulation which enables the Minister of Fuel and Power to make Orders for the closing up of highways—and highways includes footpaths—for the purpose of opencast coalmining and the erection of electricity generating stations. As I understand the


right hon. Gentleman's very clear account, the reason for the retention of this Defence Regulation is primarily to enable a temporary closing to be effected. I have the opportunity of making only one speech on the Report stage, and, therefore, I cannot await what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on this matter and then put my point to him in case he has not dealt with it.
Therefore, I must take this point in advance and say that, as I see it, the closing of a footpath or a highway for the erection of an electricity generating station is not likely to be a temporary closing at all. This Defence Regulation, as amended in its restricted form, will cover the closing of footpaths where affected by an electricity generating station. It may be that at this stage we cannot so limit the regulation that it applies only to temporary closings with a view to reopening in the case of opencast mining. If that be so, I can only ask for the clearest assurance that in any case where there is to be a permanent closing of a footpath, highway or right of way, that shall be done under the powers contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be replying in due course, as I have an engagement to fulfil, but I take it that any of the other processes of the ordinary law, by quarter sessions, would be just as satisfactory to the hon. and learned Gentleman as those of the Town and Country Planning Act?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was trying to deal with the point very shortly. I meant any processes legally authorised at the present time, other than the procedure under a Defence Regulation; for instance by quarter sessions, where one often has to provide an alternative of a more commodious footpath—I think "commodious" is the right word, although I am never sure what is meant—or alternatively under the Town and Country Planning Act. The House is entitled to have an assurance that when this Bill goes to another place, if possible some change will be effected to make that point absolutely clear, because it is better to have an assurance embodied in an Act of Parliament than merely in the tomes of HANSARD. I feel certain that the

Under-Secretary will be prepared to give an assurance on those lines. That is all I desire to say with regard to that Defence Regulation. I had hoped to say it quite shortly in the course of the Report stage, but I was disappointed.
May I now make a few observations on the Bill itself? It is, indeed, a Bill containing miscellaneous provisions. We find a few parts of it satisfactory, namely, those parts concerned with the ploughing grant. I do not wish to comment upon how much more effective that grant would be if the machinery were more readily available, but, so far as the rest of it is concerned, while we welcome the deletion and abolition of a number of Defence-Regulations, we on this side of the House very much deplore the retention by the Minister of Health of the powers of billeting which appear to be grossly excessive for the purpose for which he now says he wants them. What is the case for the retention of those powers? He says he must have them to deal with two classes of the community—young children evacuees in the war, now unfortunately orphaned, numbering 2,500; and civil servants who are dispersed, numbering 1,700. Under Defence Regulation 31B there is provision for dealing with those who have been evacuated under evacuation plans.
When we discussed that matter in Committee the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that that regulation could only be used for those people. But this regulation dealing with billeting goes far beyond providing accommodation for those unfortunate children—and, perhaps one may say, for those unfortunate civil servants who still have to live far away from their homes of prewar days. While we on this side of the House would not object to the right hon. Gentleman having powers to secure accommodation for these orphaned children, if he could not secure it by agreement on the proper terms, we must record our protest at the right hon. Gentleman retaining these wide powers of billeting, and we must record our fear that as the direction of labour increases, as apparently it is the Government's policy that it will, these powers will be called into play to secure accommodation, in view of the lack of it, largely owing to the failure of the Minister of Health.
I do not intend to traverse all the contents of this remarkably miscellaneous


Bill. We shall be glad when the day comes when we can indeed dispense with all Defence Regulations, and rely upon the law being found in statutes which have first to obtain the approval of this House, and upon Bills which can be amended by hon. Members, instead of upon orders made over the signature of a right hon. Gentleman.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: This Bill, some parts of which may undoubtedly be necessary, suffers from the grave defect that it gives to the Executive much wider powers than are essential for the administrative purposes for which they are required, and also the defect that they are to be continued well into 1950. They are powers which may have been necessary during the war and during an emergency, but which are no longer necessary in this wide application. The proper test for that has been laid down by no other person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Speaking during the war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied the really proper test. He said:
Exceptional circumstances…may need exceptional regulations, something which may possibly go beyond the ordinary law as it exists in times of peace. What we must bear in mind is that it is far easier to throw away liberty casually than it is to get it back again afterwards, once it has been destroyed. The question we have to consider tonight"—
he was speaking in October, 1939—
is: What is the minimum of special regulations which will accomplish the legitimate purpose of protecting the country against its enemies?
I would stress the word "minimum." This Bill does not deal with the minimum of special regulation, or with protecting the country against its enemies, but is intended to operate in time of peace. These powers, which are considered too wide for time of war, are surely too wide in peacetime. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
Anything that goes beyond that"—
that is, beyond the minimum necessary—
is an unnecessary attack upon the liberty of the subject and ought not to be tolerated by those who should specially be the guardians of the liberties of the people.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the real test was not,
what is convenient for the administrator and the bureaucrat, who promises not to misuse the powers that he has, even though

they are, admittedly, too wide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1939; Vol. 352, c. 1889.]
These regulations may, undoubtedly, be very convenient for the administrator and the bureaucrat, but that is not at all the test which should be applied here. The complaint to be made against this Bill is—indeed, as the Home Secretary admitted in the Committee stage of the Bill—that it would be better if some of these regulations had been framed to meet the existing situation. His only defence for extending some of them for this period was that their extension would provide an opportunity to reconsider them. That is no argument for the Bill. They could have been reconsidered before this Bill was presented to the House. These powers are too wide and we, as the custodians of the liberty of the people, regard the provisions of this Bill with great jealousy, and feel that we cannot give it a Third Reading in its present form.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I want to raise a small point in connection with Clause 8. Whatever justification there may be for the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) with regard to the powers placed in the hands of administrative bureaucrats in this country, I think we have to look even more carefully at powers which are retained through this Bill for other administrative bureaucrats—I say this in no invidious way—in the Colonies. Clause 8 provides an extension for practically three years of unnamed and unnumbered Defence Regulations in "colonies and other territories". That is not sufficiently specific in the view of those of us who have watched the application of some of these Defence Regulations by colonial governments with some suspicion and, indeed, alarm.
I would beg the Under-Secretary of State to enlighten us as to why many of these regulations are still in force, and are proposed to be kept in force for another three years in our Colonies—whether they relate purely to military installations, or to the control of populations generally as they have done in the past. Exactly what justification there is for retaining the main categories of these regulations in the Colonies? I am also rather puzzled about the reference to "other territories". I should very


much welcome elucidation of that point. Where are these territories to which reference is made? What control have we over them in normal circumstances? Does that expression "other territories" refer, for instance, to arrangements with Dominions, or is it a reference to former mandated territories which are now trusteeship territories?
I should very much like to add a note of warning about the retention of Defence Regulations unnecessarily within the Colonial Empire after war conditions have passed, because there is always the temptation to use them for reasons other than those for which they were originally introduced. I am not entirely satisfied with a Clause like this, which does not specify the kind of regulations to be retained, indicate the present purposes for retaining them, or give any clear justification of them.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading of this Bill with his characteristic reasonableness of manner, he gave the impression to hon. Members on both sides of the House that this Bill represented an attempt to discard certain wartime powers which were no longer required; and, indeed, his whole manner of approach, the care with which he referred to the different categories of regulations in the different parts of the First Schedule, reinforced that impression. The opportunities which the House has since had of examining in greater detail the proposals of this Bill, however, have done very little to confirm that impression. It is perfectly true that this Bill gets rid of a certain number of Defence Regulations, and we have learned in this Parliament to be thankful for even small legislative mercies; and so far as regulations are eliminated there is something to be said for that part of the Bill which eliminates them.
But consideration of the regulations involved, and, in particular, the contributions to our Debates of certain Ministers other than the Home Secretary, have done everything to reinforce the feeling that the really important Defence Regulations from the point of the liberty of the subject are not only being retained but are being prolonged until 10th December, 1950. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has referred to the

continuation of the regulation which gives the Minister of Health the full power of billeting. That is one of the serious intrusions upon the liberty of the subject, and it is one for which there has been no attempt at any stage of this Bill to offer the slightest serious justification. The other matter of enormous seriousness is the fact that no attempt has been made to get rid of the regulation under which labour is directed.
The impression is, undoubtedly, that while certain regulations of some importance are being dispensed with, the great ones which really affect the liberties of individuals in this country are being retained, and retained for a substantial period. Not only are they retained for the periods provided in the Schedules to the Bill, but the Government have retained power in Clause 7 to extend them even further. As I understand Clause 7, it will be possible to extend them quite indefinitely by yearly resolutions. That Clause is a blot on the Bill, because it means that we shall not have finished with these Regulations necessarily, even when the dates specified in the First Schedule are reached. If this Bill is to be regarded as a means of getting rid of wartime regulations it is a very poor, meagre and inadequate Bill; whereas if it is to be regarded as part of the Government's attempt to use them, as the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) said, for totally different purposes than those for which they were intended—as war emergency powers—then this Bill goes a long way to do that.
Therefore, we are back at the fundamental issue whether, as the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) said, serious matters are to be discussed by the processes of legislation, with all the safeguards which the experience of our predecessors has evolved in that process, or whether great matters affecting the liberties and the wellbeing of this country are to be dealt with simply by the use of emergency powers—simply, in fact, by the untrammelled decisions of Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, this is a poor Bill. It is an inadequate Bill. It does a little good and a great deal of harm. It will certainly leave in the minds of the people of this country the impression that this Government desire to retain, and to retain for a long period, the stranglehold of non-legislative controls over the lives and livelihood of our people.

4.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Let me first deal with the only two specific points with which I have been asked to deal at this stage. First, there is the question of Regulation 16, of stopping up highways and rights of way for the purposes of opencast coal workings or for the building of generating stations. As the hon. and learned Member for Daven-try (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, my right hon. Friend undertook on the Committee stage to see whether it might be possible to make use of the powers contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The first general thing I would say about that Act is that it was clearly intended for a different purpose. Section 49, which deals with this, states:
…in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of this Act or to be carried out by a government department.…
It may be that, as a matter of law, one could bring the operation of opencast coal working carried out by the Ministry of Fuel and Power within that definition, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that was not the type of thing which was envisaged in the Act.
That is only a general comment, and it is not the point I wish to emphasise. I wish to emphasise that this regulation is required for urgent purposes. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the Sixth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which governs the procedure under which highways may be stopped up, he will find that it is certainly not a procedure which can be used where this has to be done rapidly. Notice has to be given, and the plan has to be available for inspection for three months. If during that time, and it might be on the last day, objections are taken, there has to be a public inquiry. I think he will agree that this delay can not be reasonably envisaged for purposes of this kind.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the question of the permanent stopping up of highways in connection with generating stations. My right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to look at this again, and to put down some Amendment in another place if necessary. I am bound to say, however, that I scarcely think it will be necessary to do

that. My right hon. Friend indicated, if not in Committee, at any rate in the letter he wrote, that where it was intended that a temporary stopping up should become permanent, there could be no objection to using the normal procedure, either under this Act, or the old procedure of Quarter Sessions, and he is prepared to see that that will always be done.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In the case of a temporary closing, I understand that Regulation 16 will be used both in the case of opencast coal mining, and in the case of electricity generating stations, but when it is a question of a permanent closing, the Under-Secretary limits it to electricity generating stations. When there is a question of the permanent closing of a highway or footpath, whether for opencast coal mining or in connection with an electricity generating station, can we have an assurance that the normal procedure under the law—going to Quarter Sessions—or under the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1944 or 1947 will be adopted?

Mr. Younger: In deciding whether the stopping up is to be done by this regulation, the criterion will have to be urgency, whether it is for opencast coal mining or for the building of a generating station. There would be nothing to prevent a temporary order being followed up, if it were intended to make it permanent, by the procedure under the Town and Country Planning Acts. The reason why I limited permanency to generating stations, is because there can be no question of requiring a permanent stopping up for the purposes of opencast coal working, which is essentially a temporary operation. I cannot give an undertaking, but it is certainly my understanding that permanency can only be required in connection with a generating station. I hope that I have made the position clear.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard), I would make it clear that Clause 8 does not enable anyone in the Colonies, or other territories, by which is meant principally Trust Territories to which these regulations have certainly applied, to make any new regulations. It is simply in their case, as with us, a question of continuing for certain purposes regulations already in force. He will realise that the purposes for which


these regulations were introduced in so many different parts of the world are far too diverse for me to explain here. Briefly, they were for war purposes, and they have to be continued during the transitional stage for the same sort of reasons which we have put forward and have been accepted in our own case.

Mr. Skinnard: Does my hon. Friend mean that, in general, these regulations mainly cover questions of Imperial defence?

Mr. Younger: I should not be prepared to limit myself to that, any more than I could say that the Defence Regulations in this country were originally produced or required to be continued purely for defence reasons. Matters of economic organisation are also involved, which makes it very difficult to bring these regulations to a sudden end. I can only say that a survey is being undertaken at the moment, and it is hoped that very many of these regulations will be dispensed with shortly. I would draw attention to the fact that until the very last moment in this Debate, it has not been alleged that these powers have been misused; nor has our attention been drawn to any abuses of the Defence Regulations in any Colonial territory.
I need not say much about Regulation 22, which concerns billeting. Those who were present during the Committee Stage will realise that this is the Regulation which aroused the strongest feelings among hon. Members opposite. I would only repeat that there is no intention to use this Regulation in connection with direction of labour, cither in connection with imported labour from abroad or in connection with British labour. That assurance was given on Second Reading, repeated by the Minister during the Committee Stage, and is being repeated again by me now. Hon. Members who spoke on the subject recognised that there were some purposes, limited, no doubt, in number and category, for which some kind of billeting powers were necessary. It was suggested that the Regulation was far too large a hammer with which to hit a very small nail. It is very difficult to devise any formula to cover these small, miscellaneous and necessary occasions for the use of billeting powers without making the powers fairly wide. I hope that the assurance I have given in connection with

direction of labour will, to some extent, comfort hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the Under-Secretary considered introducing some limiting form of words, to be put either in the Bill or by way of Amendment to the Defence Regulation, showing that these very wide powers shall only be used for the purposes he has specified? Has he even considered that?

Mr. Younger: It has been considered. All I can say is that there are certain occasions, as in the case of some disaster, such as we had last winter, due to serious flooding or something of that kind, where, in the present conditions of overcrowding, it might be necessary to use some powers, of billeting. The Minister of Health, to whose speech in Committee so much objection was taken, showed very clearly that even in the very difficult circumstances of last winter, when he might have been tempted to use these powers, he did not, in fact, do so. These powers will not be used, unless it is absolutely necessary. It would be unreasonable to ask the Government to go further than the undertaking I have given, and to ask for some provision to be put in the Bill which would entirely exclude the possibility of these powers being used in such a case as I have mentioned.
I would say one word about the general allegations made against this Bill by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who enjoyed himself this afternoon, as he always does on matters of this kind. He cannot possibly believe what he asked us to believe, namely, that the people of this country will regard this as a serious infringement of their liberty, or anything of that kind. When I spoke on the Second Reading, I suggested that this was a strictly practical Measure of a rather pedestrian kind, which did not raise any great issues of constitutional principle. It is a miscellaneous Bill and even, I am prepared to admit, a somewhat messy one. I think we would be optimistic if we thought that we could pass from a situation in which we had several new codes of Defence Regulations covering, I think, hundreds of different provisions, to the normal situation—where every issue was dealt with by a Bill, going through all the legislative processes—without having a transitional period when we would have to have omnibus Bills of this kind.
The whole of Part I of the First Schedule will be gone by the end of this year; the whole of Part II will be gone by the end of next year, gone as Defence Regulations although, in some cases, they will be incorporated in new legislation. The Second Schedule will have become the permanent law of the land, and I think that controversy in this matter relates only to Part III of the First Schedule, which includes regulations to be continued until 1950. It is a little too facile to suggest, as the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin-Morris) suggested, that these regulations, taken together, imply the giving of new and oppressive powers to the Executive. I believe he raised that point on an earlier stage of the Bill, when I replied then, as I do now, that there are few regulations which could be included in any such category. It was significant that the hon. and learned Member did not go beyond generalities on this occasion. He did not specify what were the oppressive powers to which he referred. I appreciate that that accusation could be laid—although, I think, wrongly—against Regulation 22, which has been fully discussed, but it could not be applied to the mass of other regulations, and I ask Members not to exaggerate in that respect.
We have had a full Debate twice in peace time, and although it is true that the regulations we are now continuing were devised for war, it is also true that they were fully considered just over a year ago when, in many cases, they were amended. Every Member concerned with these Debates was thinking of the necessity for the use of these regulations in peace time. It was to adapt them to peacetime conditions that they were amended. We have had a very full discussion this time, and, with respect, it is nonsense to suggest that in this matter we have tried in any way to short circuit the normal Parliamentary processes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS &c.) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I beg to

move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As hon. Members will probably know, the system under which pensions are granted from the Exchequer in respect of service as a Colonial governor is laid down in the Pensions (Governors of Dominions &c.) Act, 1911, as amended by the Acts of 1929 and 1936. Briefly it is this: On retirement at the age of 60 or, in special circumstances, an earlier age, a governor who has served as such for 10 years or more, or for three years if, immediately before his appointment as governor, he was in the permanent Civil Service of the State, is eligible for pension calculated according to his length of service in the various classes of governorship. There are four classes of governorship and the rates of pension are £6, £5, £4, and £3 respectively for every month of service in those Classes—Classes 1, 2, 3 and 4. One of the special circumstances for retirement before the age of 60 is on the ground that further appropriate employment is not available. When that is applied the pension earned by the length of service is reduced to 1/240th for every complete month, every month that must elapse between the date on which the pension becomes payable and the time at which the governor to whom the pension becomes payable attains the age of 60.
As Members will see from the Memorandum accompanying the Bill, there are three respects in which it is proposed to alter this system. First, by changing the retiring age from 60 to 55; second, by increasing the pension rates; third, by removing the provision for reduction of pension on premature retirement. The great majority of Colonial governors are appointed from the Colonial Service. Of the 34 Colonial governors now serving, 29 were in the Service, and were appointed from it. In the Colonial Service itself the normal retiring age is 55. That is not merely for European officers, but also for local officers. This is the age which has been based on long experience in tropical countries. It has been found, not merely in the Government service, but also in other services—in business, at the Bar, and so on—that when a man has reached 55 in a tropical country, after being there for many years, his desire, as a general rule, has been to retire. The duties of governors are more strenuous


today than they used to be; a great deal of work is imposed upon them, and the pace of life in the various Colonies has increased during the last few years, just as it has in this country. Therefore, there is a great desire in the Colonies now, and certainly it is the desire of the Colomal Secretary, that younger and more active men should, where possible, be placed in these responsible posts.
The reduction in the retiring age which Clause I seeks to effect will not prevent a governor from continuing in the Service after the age of 55, if it is in accordance with his own wish and the wish of my right hon. Friend. If it is in the public interest that he should continue there is nothing in the Bill to stop him from doing so, provided he agrees. The remaining Subsections of Clause 1 are consequential. Under the present law a governor who, immediately before his appointment, was employed in the permanent Civil Service of the State may, subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions, be granted a pension either under the Pensions Acts which I have mentioned or under the Superannuation Acts. Subsections 2 and 3 of Clause I seek to preserve these benefits notwith-standing that the governor retires before the age of 60. They are, as I have said, consequential.
The present rates were fixed in 1929. Since then there has been an increase in the level of salaries in the Colonial Civil Services and, more recently, postwar revisions have been undertaken in the Colonies. As the pensions of Colonial civil servants are calculated on salary, and not on flat rates, as in the case of governors, the result is that the rates of pension earned by governors are now out of scale with those earned by civil servants junior to themselves. For example, a governor who is shortly to retire, after 34 years' service in the tropics, is cligible for a total pension, in respect of his service as a Colonial official and as a governor, less than the pension which his own chief secretary, who is also shortly to retire, will receive. Another governor, also about to retire after long tropical service of which the last six years has been as governor, would, if he had been appointed instead Colonial secretary of the Colony of which he was governor—have been eligible for exactly the same pension as he will now receive in total—Colonial pension and governor's pension.
The increase now proposed of £1 in Class I or Class II and 10s. in Class III or Class IV is regarded as, and, indeed, is, the necessary adjustment to balance the pensions in this respect. They will bring the new pension rates for Colonial governors into line with the new level of salaries in the Colonies and make allowance for the decline in the purchasing power of the pound since the rates were last increased in 192g. There is no provision to amend the present limit of £2,000 of pension from all sources. Clause 2 seeks to effect these increases and to apply them to those serving as governors at the date of the commencement of the Act. A serving governor will, on retirement, have the benefit of these increases in respect of his services as a governor prior to that date.
As regards the third point—the reduction imposed by the existing provision is, of course, substantial. It amounts in the case of retirement five years before the qualifying age to no less than 25 per cent. of the pension earned by service as governor. Experience of the application of this provision has shown that it is unsatisfactory since it tends to attach a quite unwarranted stigma on the retiring governor and very often causes him to feel embittered after a long life of service in various Colonial territories. It is an unusual provision, and there is no longer justification for retaining it or for requiring pensioner governors who now suffer a reduction on this account to continue to do so. Therefore, Clause 3 seeks to remove the provision, and also to provide for restoration, as from the date of the commencement of the Act, of reductions which have been made in pensions which are still in payment. There are four such pensions. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: This is a small but useful Bill, which, I think, will be welcomed on all sides of the House. It deals only, of course, with the limited class of Colonial governor, but I feel that the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes law, will be of considerable help to any future Secretary of State. I am sure that the present occupant of that position has experienced, as all his predecessors did, times when he felt that it would be in the public interest if the tenure of office of some governor


was not prolonged, or if no further appointment was offered to him; and, at the same time, he was up against the fact that the conditions of pension would mean that a man who had given long, faithful and good service to His Majesty, often under very difficult conditions, was to be thrown on to the world very inadequately provided for.
It is wrong that the Secretary of State should have to weigh these two arguments—treating unfairly a faithful servant, or giving a job to a man of whose competence he is not quite certain. Therefore, I welcome any proposal which ensures that a governor—who by the mere fact of being appointed governor shows that he has for many years given valuable service—shall, when the time comes for him to retire, be adequately provided for. I have, therefore, nothing but support to give for the principles of the Bill. I have, however, two detailed points which I want to raise, and which I would like the Secretary of State to consider.
I am in this difficulty. After the Second Reading of this Bill, which naturally we shall not oppose, the Financial Resolution will be considered. I If the right hon. Gentleman will look at that Resolution, he will see that it is drawn in exactly those terms which Mr. Speaker has, on several occasions, condemned, as being against the proper practice of this House; that is to say, the Financial Resolution reproduces almost every detail of the Bill, which means, therefore, that, with the passage of the Resolution, we are unable to pass in Committee, or even to discuss in Committee, any Amendment which would have the effect of increasing the amounts set out in the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in allowing the Resolution to go forward in this way, must have overlooked that point. If it is passed in that form it will prevent discussion, certainly of one, and probably of the two points with which I should not like to weary the House on Second Reading, but which I should like to discuss in Committee. I am not sure, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to the points I have in mind.
The first point is this. I am not at all happy about the difference which has been made in the increase in pensions for governors in classes I and II and the governors in classes III and IV. The

governors in classes I and II get £1 extra for every completed month, and those in classes III and IV get only 10s. I am not convinced that that is right, and that the proper thing—and not very expensive thing—would be to give them all £1. It is the governors who never get out of classes III and IV who are, on retirement, usually in the worse financial position. It is the governors who spend all their lives as governors in classes III and IV who, I am sure, provided the examples which the hon. Gentleman gave of a case where a governor was worse off than his colonial secretary. I should like to discuss at some length in Committee, with an open mind, whether it would not be preferable to give a flat rate of £1 to all Colonial gowernors in whatever class they are.
One effect of this division between the sheep and the goats is to make a very wide distinction between class II and class III. I think that everyone who has studied these things knows that, in fact, this classification of governorships is pretty inadequate, and there really is not all that difference between the obligations and responsibilities, and, indeed, the expenses which governors in the various classes have to bear. I should, therefore, like to be in a position when we come to the Committee stage—this is wholly a non-party matter, and one which the Secretary of State on reconsideration might put before the Committee—to raise it, but unless we amend the Financial Resolution it will be impossible to do so.
The other point which I want to raise is about what is to happen to the provision in, I think, the 1929 Act of a ceiling. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the 1929 Act there is a ceiling and that in no circumstances can a governor's pension exceed £2,000. Is that provision to remain?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That remains.

Mr. Stanley: Frankly, that is another point on which I should like to test the feeling of the Committee. Again, I shall be unable to do so if the Financial Resolution passes in this way. It does not seem to be right, if in the pensions as a whole we are recognising the changed value of money between 1929 and 1947, that we should not recognise the changed value of money in the ceiling which is put upon a pension which a governor may


receive It happens that under the old provisions of 1929 this ceiling of £2,000 was hardly ever applicable. In other words, it was there merely to catch some quite exceptional case. I have worked out some instances of the new scale, including, of course, the new scale of Colonial Service pension which a governor will earn before he becomes a governor, and it appears that there will be a number of cases where the pension will come to over £2,000. The result of that ceiling is that if a man is wanted for his last four or five years for an important governorship, before he ever takes up the appointment he will have attained the maximum pension that the ceiling will allow. It will mean that the next three or four years of arduous work will not really count at all in an increase of his pension.
I wonder whether that is really an economy, and whether it is calculated to ensure, in fact, that the best man is got for the job. There is a great temptation when a man is reaching somewhere near retiring age, if he is offered a good job in outside life, to say, "If I take it now I can make a new career elsewhere; if I wait for three or four years I might not get a similar chance." There is the great temptation to take it, and the one way of putting something on the other side of the scales is to ensure that during those three or four years such a man can be doing something to increase the pension with which he will retire. It seems to me that the retention in 1947 of the ceiling laid down in 1929 needs some justification and is a thing which the Committee should be able to discuss, and about which they should argue in detail.
Unless the Financial Resolution is amended we shall be precluded from discussing either of these things, because they would mean an increase of payments for which the Financial Resolution makes no provision. I appeal to the Colonial Secretary, when he moves the Financial Resolution, to accept a small Amendment to leave out all the words after "Session" in line 6, for if we provided only for the general expenses of the Bill and left out the details, it would not limit the discussion. I am sure that would be for the convenience of the House. It would not detract from the general principle of the Bill and a further discussion of these points could very properly take place in Committee.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I am very much obliged for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), and on behalf of the Government I should like to say that, although over a long period we gave very careful consideration to the Clauses in the Bill and the terms of the revised pensions, in the light of the criticism which has been made I suggest that we might defer dealing with the Financial Resolution when we reach that point on the Order Paper, and take it at a later date when the Committee stage is reached. That would in the meantime permit of the redrafting or reconsideration of the Financial Resolution and also enable us to study the two points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised.

Mr. Stanley: By leave of the House, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the accommodating way in which he has met us. I am sure it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss what is wholly a non-party matter.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) I entirely support this Bill, and my only regret is that it is limited to increases in pensions for governors. There is an unanswerable case, in the light of the rise in the cost of living, for something to be done for governors, and there is an equally unanswerable case for a revision of the pensions of Colonial civil servants generally, because the cost of living has gone up very much indeed. I know from the many letters which I receive that many men who have served the Crown faithfully for many years in all parts of the world are suffering actual hardship today. It is true that there has been an increase in the lower paid pensions, but it has not been much, and it also carries with it the stigma of a means test.
A man who has served in the home Civil Service rightly considers he is in an equally serious position in many cases, but I suggest that the Colonial civil servant has an additional hardship for one or two reasons. First, unlike the home civil servant, who has been able to accumulate a house and furniture of his own during his service, the man who has been


serving abroad cannot do that, so that when he comes back to this country he has to incur very great expenses in setting up home anew. Also he has the expense of the education of his children in a way which the home civil servant never has. The Colonial civil servant has to send home his children from a young age to be educated, and that puts upon him an additional expense at a time when perhaps he might otherwise be saving a bit of money. I regret that this Bill is limited to the pensions of governors, and I hope before long that the Colonial Secretary will tackle in some shape or other this problem of Colonial civil servants generally who are trying to live on a prewar pension.
With regard to the Bill itself, I should like to support the idea that governors shall retire at earlier ages. Not only is the service in the Colonies far more arduous than it ever was before the war, but also it will mean that men no longer have to be kept on merely because one does not want them to be done out of a proportion of their pension. I am sure it will lead to greater efficiency and a greater chance of promotion for the younger men. The other two points I wanted to raise I need not mention now after what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol, because they are Committee points.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I rise only to add my welcome to this very short but very important Bill. My welcome is for somewhat different reasons from those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), because, as he has pointed out, there is little difference in the lower grades and between grades 2 and 3 in the duties and expenses of governors, but there is a big difference in the rating of men in the Colonial Service within those two grades. Grade 3 governors as a general rule want and expect to go to the highest possible positions, or at any rate have a chance to do so. The trouble is that those reaching the grade have generally had to wait until their physical and mental powers have diminished before they get one of the most important governorships which is usually most arduous. If this Bill will do anything—and I think it will—to help cutout the dead wood so that the younger

men will get bigger chances of promotion much earlier in their careers, I shall welcome it.
There are many men who have had to pursue the line of promotion along the ladder of chief secretaryships for a very long time, and have reached the position of governor when their own powers of tackling problems are getting less. This Bill will give a chance of quick advance for young men who, in chief secretaryships, have proved themselves able administrators, excellent negotiators and acceptable to the colonial peoples, so that when their powers are at their greatest they can give their greatest service. I do not wish in any way to denigrate the service of men who, without particular genius or special aptitude, have proved themselves sound if uninspired officials, and in course of time have reached minor governorships at a comparatively early age. But one often finds them blocking the progress of the younger, abler men by a system of seniority which leaves them in Colonies for which they have no particular capabilities, except that they have had some experience gained in an entirely different capacity elsewhere. This provision for early retirement is an opportunity to retire with dignity, and with a great deal more financial ease than in the past.
It has been a very undignified thing to have governors in some of these Colonies looking round during the last year or two of their service for a suitably soft cushion on which to fall when they retire. It was not only undignified, but it led to a suspicion, probably quite unjustified, of the way they were conducting the affairs of the Colonies. You cannot blame a man, when his pension is going to be inadequate to his dignity and the life he has lived, if he looks around for something useful in the way of directorships. I sincerely hope this Pensions Bill will obviate the necessity for such looking round when retirement comes along. I am glad the right hon. Member for West Bristol has raised the question of the form of the Financial Resolution, more particularly because of the considerable difference in treatment between class II and III governors. I am very glad there is going to be no opposition to this Bill. I am convinced it is going to have a tonic effect on the young and able men in the Colonial Service who will see promotion come much nearer than it otherwise would have been.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I heartily welcome this Bill. I am not speaking as an expert on Colonial affairs, but from the point of view of a person who represents a number of people who have served the Empire and are now retired. I know something of the position of these men who have given the best years of their lives to the service of the Empire, and I am sure they will welcome the fact that we are today improving the position of those who will serve in the future. These men have given everything to their service. They have played a very vital part. I welcome the Bill also from the point of view that we are encouraging the best type of civil servants to give their talents to the service of the Empire. There is nothing more vital than to get the very best type of man. I would like to support the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). He took the point of view that this Bill did not go far enough. I do not intend to pursue that. I do wish it had gone much further—right outside the scope of governors—but that is a purely private wish and I will not develop it now.
Another point to which I wanted to refer, but which I only mention in passing, because it has been satisfactorily settled, is the extremely unsatisfactory position in which we were placed by the Financial Resolution. I welcome most heartily the reference to that fact by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol, who is not only always interesting and generally amusing, but very industrious. If we are to have a Financial Resolution which tends to preclude Amendments in Committee, it does limit our powers. It has been settled in a friendly way on this occasion, but if there is a reasonably drafted Financial Resolution, and proper discussion is allowed in Committee, time is eliminated in dealing with the matter. I recommend the Chief Patronage Secretary to use his powers with his colleagues on the Front Bench to see that in future Financial Resolutions are not drafted in the way the present one has been.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Mack: I cannot speak with much knowledge about the position of governors, but nevertheless would like to ask that there should be a clear understanding from the Minister regarding the question of the retiring

age. The life they live in parts of our far-flung Empire must be very severe if the relatively young age of 55 is considered a suitable retiring age. Bless my soul, it would be a terrible thing if that figure were applied to the House, although I am not so sure it would not be advantageous in some cases. Normally, at 55, a man is supposed to have reached the prime of life. It may be that active service in some unpleasant part of the world, where mosquitoes abound and where the water is not fit for human absorption and homes may not be up to the present sanitation standard, all these factors may tend to shorten the life of a governor or render less the ability necessary in such a position.
There does not seem to be any great deal of disparity, I should have thought, between 55 and 60 as regards the amount of money to be allocated. We are told that class I will have £6 a year for every completed month of service and class II £5 a year for every completed month of service. I would like to know something more about the status of the various governors. Who gets the £6 rate and who the £5 rate, and so on? I should have thought that in some less important areas of the world governors who have a more arduous and difficult task would deserve more money than some of the more cushy gentlemen residing in large white palaces in some of the larger areas, and attended by numerous servants. I should have thought that some of the lesser governors deserved higher salaries. In Clause I, the age 55 is substituted for the age 60, but the Memorandum attached to the Bill explains that there is nothing to prevent governors serving after that age, if it is in the public interest. Who determines what is the public interest? Why should some people be told to stay on the job after the age of 55? Is it because they have a peculiar aptitude for the work, because they are popular, because they speak the particular language, or have been in the territory for so long that they have qualifications for the job that would not be possessed by their successor?
Then there is a series of questions relating to the cost of living. I would like to know if the cost of living has appreciated in the Colonies as it has elsewhere? It seems to me that an increase of £1 for classes I and II and of 10s. for classes III and IV may probably prove inadequate.


We ought to have more information about that point. What is to be the test of efficiency? Who is to determine what efficiency is required in a particular Dominion or Protectorate? Is the test to be years of service, the governor's ready acquiescence in the policy of a Government that has been in power, or what is it? Those are matters which ought to be known to all hon. Members, but at present they seem to be beyond our knowledge or even our capacity to ascertain.
I am standing here at the second Bench, and I have calculated that 44½ inches in front of me there is a difference of £4,000 a year in some cases, as compared with my own salary. That position has been accepted by custom, but to some of us it seems to be a fortuitous decree of circumstance. Members of Parliament do not qualify for pensions at all, whatever their rank, qualifications, or years of service. I would like to know a little more about the salary which is given to governors and upon which this £6 or £7 a year for each completed month of service is determined. If a man has served 25 years as governor, what is the relationship between the size of his pension after retiring with the length of his service and the amount of money that he has earned? I trust that these questions will be briefly dealt with. Apart from those points, I subscribe to the general principles of the Bill, which contains that element of humanity which always secures unanimity in this House.

5.3p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Perhaps I might, with the leave of the House, reply to the various points which have been raised. I am very glad that the Bill has met with unanimity and has received such a warm welcome on all sides of the House. Some hon. Members know very well the conditions under which governors have served and have rendered most disunguished service to the Territories they governed and to this country. The points raised by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) have already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, and, therefore, I will not deal with them at this moment.

Mr. Stanley: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was going to deal with them later.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has dealt with them, so far as. was possible today, and he has promised the right hon. Member that he will take them into consideration for the Committee stage.

The question of increases in the Colonial Civil Service pensions, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) is very big. It is far too wide to be gone into on the Bill. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the pensions of Colonial servants have been improved as a result of increased salary scales in various Colonies. Those pensions, differing from the pensions of governors, depend upon salaries and are not, therefore, on a flat rate. There are provisions in most Colonies, but not in all, for a supplement to be paid in the case of most pensions, in accordance with the Pensions (Increase) Act. My hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard), who is out of the Chamber at the moment, was quite correct in saying that the Bill will have a tonic effect upon Colonial servants generally.

I have tried to take down the various points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), and I will now try to answer them. With regard to the tempo of life, it is a fact that a man who has spent many years in the tropics—not all the Colonies are tropical, of course—or in the equatorial zone and who has arrived at the age of 55 is often glad to retire. Life in those zones is such that, after a man has spent 30 years in a place like Malaya, to take a case in point, he is usually anxious to have a few years in which to enjoy himself before becoming incapable of taking an active part in life. I know many men, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey has too, who have been anxious to retire at 55, but that age is not obligatory. If a governor wishes to stay on and if the Secretary of State wishes him to do so he can stay until the age of 60.

With regard to the classes of Colonies, there is a classification according to size of population and the responsibility which the office of governor entails. There are four classes that have been in existence for a good many years and are well understood in the service. Naturally, a governor is paid according to the class of Colony in which his governorship is


served. The decision as to what is the public interest—this point was also raised by my hon. Friend—is a matter for the Secretary of State. He is responsible to Parliament, and in this instance to the House of Commons, for the decision which he makes. In the final analysis, therefore, the public interest is safeguarded by the Members of this House.

I did not quite appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the relationship between cost of living in the Colonies and increases in pension. The cost of living in the country in which a governor serves does not affect the position at all. As a general rule a governor does not retire in the country in which he has served. It is most unusual for him to do so. Therefore, it does not matter whether the cost of living in the territory has increased or not. His pension will be enjoyed not in that territory but, as a general rule, in this country, or in countries like South Africa. As to salaries, I cannot give the figures off-hand of the salaries which are paid to governors. They range between £1,800 and £4,000 a year. In one case, Nigeria—I am speaking from memory—the salary is as much as £5,000 a year, but that is exceptional.

Mr. Mack: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether there are emoluments and allowances in addition to the salary?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Of course, there are allowances of various kinds, an entertainment allowance and others, which are paid to the governor as he has to maintain a considerable household and to uphold the dignity of his office, and is responsible both to the people of the territory and to the Government.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these allowances are sufficient in view of the tremendous increase in travellers by air who treat many of these Government Houses more or less as Government hotels?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another matter entirely. We are only dealing with the governor after he has retired and not while he is still in office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Richard Adams.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the sums available for defraying expenses incurred by the Minister of Works under Section one of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the increase by twenty million pounds of the limit upon the sums which the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of defraying the expenses aforesaid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We do not intend to debate this at any length although these are very large sums and it would be quite wrong that they should go through without a certain amount of notice being taken of them by the House. We have later on the Order Paper an Amendment at which we hope the Minister will be able to look with sympathy and which we think will do something to meet the points we raised on the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Financial Resolution when it was first brought up in Committee.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I and a few of my hon. Friends took some part in the Committee Stage of the Financial Resolution. On that occasion we raised the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) and other supporters of the Government, that before such a large sum as this was granted some way might have been found by the Government to carry out what the hon. Member for Mitcham and his supporters asked for. That was that there should be a general inquiry into the cost of these houses. In accordance with what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Col. Elliot), I do not intend to expand upon that, but it is monstrous that last night and so far today we have had no one on the Government side in the least prepared to face this matter of the inquiry.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works quite charmingly gave us various reasons why costs have gone up, but that did not meet the fact, which will be found in the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham, that in these houses where the cost is something


over £1,620, we are actually getting only about 60 per cent. of real value. Many of us feel that when an expert from the Government side makes an appeal of that sort to the Government, we should have something in the nature of a report which can be laid before the House so that we may know where this money is going. I am entirely in favour of this aspect of dealing with the housing problem. I realise the difficulties and I realise that in consequence of this, some people have got reasonable homes, but purely from the financial point of view, the position has been exceedingly unsatisfactory.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of sums available for defraying expenses of Minister of Works under S. I of Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944.)

5.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to add:
(2) The Minister of Works shall, not later than the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and each six months thereafter, until the completion of the temporary housing programme, lay before Parliament a progress report showing, interalia, the average cost of each completed type of temporary house within the previous six months and an explanation of any variation of costs which has occurred since the previous report.
I move this Amendment so as to prevent this House and the country experiencing the kind of shock they received when this Bill was presented for Second Reading. After all, it is a very considerable thing that where contingencies of £22 million—that is what the figure worked out to be—have been allowed for two years ago, we should now be asked to give an additional £20 million. The figures given to us on Second Reading are very difficult to understand, and I should have thought it would have been much simpler if the figures could have been reduced to the actual increases in the individual houses

instead of being given in large lump sums. Even the figures as given are difficult to reconcile. The Minister told us that there were four causes for increases. The first of these was the increase in wage rates of 11 per cent. He said that these involved an increase of about £11 million on site preparation and house erection and on the supply of the fitments. He then gave us his second cause for the increase, the cost of distribution and transport, which amounted to £7,500,000.
He gave us no other figures apart from those two, and moved on to his fourth item. I do not know whether he meant to say his third item, but he called it his fourth. That item was the aluminium house. I want to put that aside for the moment and to come to what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary because I cannot make the figures agree. One of the reasons why we are putting down this Amendment is that we shall have, it possible, detailed figures at periodic intervals. The hon. Gentleman said:
As far as increased costs of the Ministry of Works types of temporary houses are concerned, the factory costs of those houses are down. A third of the increase in cost is due to the increase in site preparation costs.…
That would mean that a third of the increase, if we remove the aluminium house from the calculations, would be £8,600,000. That figure does not com-pate with any figure given by the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary continued:
Almost all the remainder "—
that would be two-thirds—
is due to increases in transport and storage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1570.]
That works out at a figure in excess of £15 million, but the Minister gave the figure for the cost of distribution and transport as £7,500,000. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can explain, but it is difficult to understand exactly what was meant. The hon. Gentleman will realise that still we are not aware of the actual cost of the Ministry of Works type of temporary house. The last figure was somewhere about £1,100. What it is now I do not know. I do not think it has ever been given, and it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could give us that figure today.
May I turn to another reason why the figures should be given in connection with


the aluminium house? The hon. Gentleman, in summing up the situation, told us that there was a 40 per cent. increase in the cost due to differences in regard to the make-up of the structure. Then there was a 35 per cent. increase in the cost of the components. He claimed that these components were really nothing to do with the housing programme, but I do not see how houses of this nature can be provided without the components; they are part of the house, and surely they must come into the programme? Then he went on to say that he was left with less than 20 per cent. Actually he was left with 25 per cent. on his own figures. I am not making a point of that, but it is difficult when one is making calculations. He-went on:
most of which is due to increases in over-head charges.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1570 and 1571.]
Here we are left without any details whatever. The House had thrown at it during Second Reading merely mass figures which do not seem to tie up, and there is nothing at all to show how the increased cost of the house is arrived at. We are desirous, that these things should be known. We think it would be helpful, not only to Members of this Committee but also to the public, and we should like to have a statement from time to time showing how the costs have varied and the reasons for these variations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): This Amendment represents the next stage of the argument put forward during the Second Reading Debate, that more information should be supplied on the detailed figures and, particularly, a breakdown of the increase in costs involved by the change in the present Estimates as against the 1945 Estimates. The suggestion was made then, I think by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) that some kind of Government publication should be provided—possibly along the lines of the 1945 White Paper which set forth the particular items by which the increase in the Estimate had been made up—for this later stage now we are nearing completion of the temporary housing programme.
It would be difficult to accept the Amendment. The programme is coming to an end and a progress report limited

to the last six months—the first thing asked for in the Amendment—and then one which contains the tail-end of the programme in the second six months, would not provide hon. Members with the information they want, or right hon. Gentlemen opposite with the answers to the questions they have asked today. However, the Minister of Works and the Minister of Supply are eager to meet the request for further information, and they are prepared to provide a similar breakdown of figures to that given in the White Paper of 1945 in some suitable form. No doubt the most suitable form would be a White Paper giving the costs of all the various types of houses, and the reasons for the increase in costs, broken down in the way this was done in the 1945 White Paper. However, I am not yet in a position to make clear in what precise form the information can be supplied, but my right hon. Friends are prepared to meet precisely the request made from both sides of the Committee, and in that case I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Commander Galbraith: Could the hon. Gentleman say when that White Paper will be available? It is a matter of some importance.

Mr. Durbin: I am afraid I cannot commit myself now to a date, but as soon as possible.

Commander Galbraith: Would it be before the end of the present year? After all, that is giving a considerable period of time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has all the figures available. Could they not be put together?

Mr. Durbin: Nearly all the figures are available—I have been looking into that today—but I cannot commit myself to a precise date. I think before the end of the year is possible, but I should need further information on that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must admit that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some distance in an attempt to meet the complaint made from both sides of the House in our earlier discussions. Had he made that statement earlier it might not have been necessary for me to disturb some hon. Members from their positions of leisure at a late hour last night. I therefore wish he had made it earlier, because I detest having to take such a step, which I do not make


a practice of doing. At the same time, I am not quite happy about this. It is not quite what we have asked for in the Amendment, and I should like to see a running commentary on how the situation was developing during the remaining months. That will not be covered in the White Paper suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, though I welcome that as far as it goes. The hon. Gentleman said he would supply me with certain information for which I asked, particularly as regards the aluminium house, and I understood that information would be available before we reached this stage of the Debate but, so far, it is not in my hands. Therefore, I cannot pursue the point much further, but it underlines the fact that, supposing we accept this Clause, we are doing so without having all the information that we should have in our hands or in our pockets before we do so.
I should hate to do anything which held up the passage of this Bill if I thought that by so doing I was holding up by one minute the erection of a single temporary house. I have always been a warm supporter of such houses. However, I wonder if we should be doing that if, at this stage of the Bill, we had some information before us? It is difficult for the Committee to arrive at a fair conclusion on whether these rather general statements give us sufficient information or not on this particularly large sum of money, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can go further than he has gone in order to help us a little more.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has found himself unable to accept this Amendment because, in my submission, it is almost useless. The damage is already done, and any investigation as to increased costs on a cost that is already very much too high, is not going to get us to the root of the difficulty.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will remember that more damage can be done. There is an additional £3 million for contingencies, and the Minister said that he could not say that was the end of it.

Mr. Braddock: Yes, but we are dealing with a basic sum of £200 million.

Commander Galbraith: No.

Mr. Braddock: Twenty million pounds, unless I am wrong, is the suggested 10 per cent. increase.

Commander Galbraith: Yes.

Mr. Braddock: It is the basic sum which has to be looked at, the £200 million, and I was hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary would have made some statement on the suggestions I made in the Second Reading Debate. Unless we get some clarification of this issue, the whole principle of building by prefebrication has received its death blow in this country.
I cannot bring myself to believe that these figures are a correct assessment of the financial side of prefabrication. We have accepted, I think on good authority, that manufacturing commodities in workshops, on the belt, in a planned way, is an economic method of production, yet our experience in prefabricated housing seems to show that the more workshop production there is, the greater the cost. The aluminium house, which is the only really prefabricated house we have, is almost wholly workshop produced. We are told it is costing £1,610. I should not be at all surprised to find the cost more, in view of past experience. Other types are not prefabricated in the real sense of the word, but the components are made in bigger pieces than bricks, and have to be gathered together on the site and put together, and the cost is apparently something over £1,400. So that the more prefabrication there is, the greater the cost. That is just nonsense in view of experience in all other types of production, and it leads me to believe that there is something basically wrong in the whole set-up in regard to prefabricated houses.
I am a friend of prefabrication, and believe that there is, or should be, a great future for this type of industry in our own country for houses, schools, hospitals and everything else, and a still greater use abroad. I can see the building up of a great industry in this country to provide for the needs of rapidly developing countries all over the world. We are going in for Colonial development, and we know that the new Indian Dominions are demanding rapid housing. But, if this production is to receive such a blow, and we are to be told this is to be the


repercussion on this type of manufacture of living accommodation, the thing is damned at its birth. I do not believe these financial results give a true reflection of the real cost of these houses.
I ask the Government as I asked them in my speech on the Second Reading—to which I got no reply whatever from the Under-Secretary—that there should be a real, basic, investigation into the costs of these jobs in the workshops. We did that during the war and during the 1914–18 war. We prided ourselves on sending accountants into the munition factories, and finding out the real costs of production. As hon. Members know, the Exchequer was saved vast sums of money in that way. In view of the importance of the production of this commodity it is due to the building trade, to prefabricated building producers, and to this House that such an investigation should be made. I could not vote for this Amendment, because it simply begs the whole question, and buries the past. That is what we must not allow to be buried. I ask the Government to give the matter further consideration with a view to showing the country what is the real cost of these houses. In my opinion, it is vastly less than the amount the Government are being asked to pay in the accounts we have before us.

Mr. McKie: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who has addressed the Committee with such enthusiasm, and even engendered a little heat against his own Government; but, with the best will in the world, I find it a little difficult to follow the logic of his argument. He let us see how very deeply disturbed he is, as others in the Committee must be, about the whole process of temporary housing accommodation, and the voting of this additional £20 million. But, the hon. Member said that if the Amendment were accepted, it would get us nowhere, and would merely be opening an inquest which would prove useless, that the harm had been done, and it would be better for the Government to turn a deaf ear, and advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, through the Division Lobbies if necessary. I cannot follow that argument.
Surely the hon. Member will agree that we must be guided by past experience. If bad mistakes have been made in the past,

we must take due steps to see that such mistakes—so far as we can help it—are not made in the future. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Mitcham cannot be in any doubt that the public in his division, which is thickly populated, and the public throughout Britain are deeply disturbed about the disclosure of mounting costs of housing in general, and of prefabricated houses in particular, about which he professed himself so deeply concerned. It would be no exaggeration to say that the public mind has been staggered by the figures revealed in regard to the lightning increase from £920 to over £1,600. I hope the hon. Member will join us in the Division Lobby, if necessary in order to show the Government that we think the House of Commons and the public are entitled to have the additional information. After all, £20 million added to £200 million is a very big sum of money. For what does a Committee of the House of Commons exist, if not to inquire how public money is expended?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) that none of us would wish to hold up or prejudice the quick production of temporary accommodation. Quite the reverse, our job is to urge the Government even further in regard to this necessity. No one can be in any doubt on the other side of the Committee that the public mind is very deeply disturbed, not only at the expense, but at the lack of speedy production in this direction. I speak particularly as a Scottish Member. That is why I am especially glad that this Amendment was moved by another Scottish Member, because north of the Border there is much more to do—there is "muckle to do," to use the old Scottish phrase—about temporary housing accommodation, than there is here.
That is why I hope that even now, the Parliamentary Secretary will see the wisdom of this Amendment. If he cannot accept it in toto—and he has already intimated that he is not in a position to do so this evening—it is quite within his compass to reply again, and say that he will go further in considering this matter than he was prepared to do when he replied to my hon. and gallant Friend. He may be sure that if he will take that course, he will not merely be pleasing this.


Committee but the general public of Great Britain. If he will take this course, not only will they be assured of a full revelation of costs and prices, but they will also be able to see how quickly or slowly the Government are proceeding in providing this type of accommodation. If, in his own interests, he takes this course, he will be acting wisely.

Mr. Sparks: I have listened with some interest to what has been said, but it is important that we should make some distinction between what we are discussing—temporary housing—and what is being brought into discussion in the Debate—that is, permanent construction. I should indeed be sorry to think that our temporary housing programme is to set the standard for permanent pre-fabrication. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said quite a good deal about the imperfections of the temporary housing programme, and I thought he rather implied that the weaknesses which appear to exist in relation to costs, and probably design also, augur ill for the future development of prefabrication. I do not take that view, because the temporary housing programme is essentially a temporary undertaking, and I should hesitate to think that the temporary structures which are at present being erected are to be the criteria upon which permanent prefabrication is to take place. Therefore, there is no relationship between the production of existing temporary houses and the far wider and more substantial programme of permanent prefabrication. Permanent prefabrication will, I believe, be a success. We cannot judge its ultimate success on the basis of temporary housing programme standards.
A good deal of what has been called "synthetic indignation" has been worked up from the benches opposite on the question of the cost of the aluminium house. The financial structure of the temporary housing programme cannot be judged on the cost of one type of house out of many. The whole temporary housing scheme is a wasteful and extravagant expenditure of public funds. Its only justification is the serious urgency of the need for housing accommodation in our towns and cities and in our smaller towns also. That is the only possible justification for the whole scheme, and to isolate one particular house from all its surrounding connections, and say, "This, and this alone

is the expensive item" is to argue about something which is out of all proportion to the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent what has been said from this side of the Committee. The Minister and Parliamentary Secretary have made it perfectly clear that the largest item of increase in the whole schedule of increases was attached to the increase of price of the aluminium house. There is no doubt about that, and that is why that particular type has gained the greatest importance in the course of the Debate.

545. P. m.

Mr. Sparks: I dare say that the hon. Member is quite correct, and that there is something in what he says. It is one of the items-, but I submit that we cannot isolate one particular item; we must take the programme as a whole. This is a temporary housing scheme, and at the end of 10 years, or 12 years at the outside, all these temporary houses are to be demolished, and the families who are in them will have to be provided with further housing accommodation. Therefore, when one takes the scheme as a whole, one realises what a great waste and extravagance it is to spend £220 million to build temporary structures that will only last for 10 or 12 years, at the end of which period they are to be demolished and the families in them rehoused in other houses. That indicates to me quite clearly that the whole conception of a temporary housing scheme is based upon, I will not say extravagance or waste, but a very expensive foundation. Therefore, let us get this matter in its proper perspective.

Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Member has just intimated that at some time—in 10 or 12 years—these houses will be pulled down. I understood one of the Ministers to say the other day that they might far outlive that period. Has the hon. Member any authority to say that it is laid down somewhere that they will have to be destroyed at the end of a definite period?

Mr. Sparks: Yes. During the Second Reading Debate, in reply to me, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that I was aware, and we were


all aware, that this was a temporary housing scheme to last for 10 years. Is it temporary or is it not? This is a temporary housing scheme, and quite a number of these houses have been built upon land which has been leased for 10 or 12 years only. The policy pursued by the previous Government was that land acquired for temporary houses should be acquired on the basis of a 10 or 12 years' lease, which involves obligations upon the local authority—and this applies to the whole of the temporary housing schemes—at the end of the life of the temporary houses. I hesitate to think what some of these temporary houses will look like if they are to last longer than 10 years; they will be much like rabbit hutches. I very much doubt whether many of them would last longer than 10 years. So we are faced with the position of having a temporary housing scheme which at the end of 10 or 12 years is to cease,' the accommodation is to be dismantled, and the families concerned are to be rehoused in other accommodation.
Quite a considerable amount of the land upon which these temporary structures are built has. as I have said, been acquired on leases of 10 to 12 years. At the end of that time the roads, sewers and services are to be dug up and the capital expenditure involved, wasted. More money has to be spent to do that or else the developed site is to be handed over to the owner to utilise as he wishes. Therefore, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the wider aspects of this temporary housing scheme. It is no use judging it on the basis of the cost of the aluminium house. The scheme must be taken as a whole, and when that is done anyone will realise that the scheme is very expensive and wasteful, and its only possible justification is the immediate urgency for housing accommodation in our towns and cities.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If anything, the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has emphasised the desirability of the very Amendment which we are discussing. That is to say, he claims that he would go even further than our Amendment and say that an even more exhaustive inquiry should be granted. I understood the Minister to offer to break down the figures, which, while not going quite so far as we would wish, would give us, in general, the information which we seek. That seemed to

be a valuable concession, a fair offer which we on this side of the Committee would be anxious to accept. We think that he should be able to give an indication before we part with this Amendment, of when he will be able to give the information. I should have thought that he might have been able to afford us that information or, at any rate, that he might have explained that he would give that explanation before Parliament parted with this Bin. The Bill must also be taken in another place. It may not be convenient for the Minister to have a statement made here, but it may be possible to have a statement made in the other place. I think a case has been made out by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee for the break down of the figures in as great detail as the Minister can possibly afford.

The question has been raised that these are merely temporary houses and that we must not bring into account these figures when we are dealing with permanent prefabricated types. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), on the other hand, said that if these were the real and true figures for any kind of prefabricated house, it augured ill, to put it no higher than that, for the future of all prefabricated houses. Those of us who sat in previous Parliaments will remember that I have a long history in this matter concerned with the original prefabrication when we worked upon the Weir steel houses more than 20 years ago. I must say that we were able to get very much cheaper houses relatively even to the traditional methods, than it is possible to show on any kind of figures given today.

There is a further point where the prefabricated house comes in. It also acts, or should act, as a martingale upon soaring costs of traditional construction. We are a little disquieted to see these costs high above the level for traditional construction. It was our experience that the Weir house could always beat the first set of brick houses and never beat the second. That was a very healthy thing. Seeing the approach of the prefabricated house, people working in the traditional methods, to use a vulgarism, pulled up their socks and were able to produce at very much cheaper rates than before.

I think that the Committee requires a break down of these figures. The truth is probably half way between the view


taken by the hon. Member for Mitcham and that taken by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I do not think that these houses will be pulled down in 10 years and the inhabitants thrown into the streets. It is very improbable that we shall have enough housing accommodation in 10 years to be in a position actually to destroy housing accommodation in this country. That is extremely unlikely.

Mr. Sparks: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me what is to happen to the sites on which these temporary houses are erected?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): Hon. Members are widening this discussion into a Second Reading Debate. I think that we ought to keep more closely to the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was only dealing with the point which the hon. Member for Acton had raised. I would simply use the old Parliamentary phrase that "the resources of civilisation are not exhausted," and I believe that they will not be exhausted. We wish to know, as we put it in this Amendment:
…the average cost of each completed type of temporary house.
I am sure that information would be of value in examining the costs of the permanent type of prefabricated houses.

Mr. Sparks: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he intends to include in that the cost of the sites and the construction of sites in addition to the actual production costs of the houses, because that is very important?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The average cost of the house. The house exists not in the air or as a castle in Spain, but on an actual site on a piece of ground. Very few of us would wish to live in a house entirely divorced from all connection with the earth. In fact, I think we must take it that the average cost of the house means the average cost. Naturally, the site and the preparation of the site would come into question also.
I do not wish to widen the scope of the Debate, but I would say that experiments in prefabrication have always proved slightly less satisfactory than their originators had hoped before the programme was undertaken. One of the

Committees appointed by a previous Minister of Health, Mr. Ernest Brown, reported rather unfavourably on the undertaking of prefabrication at all. I agree that owing to the enormous pressure on the housing accommodation of this country, pressure which is likely to proceed for many years, it was very desirable to undertake this auxiliary programme. But it is very necessary to see that money is not wastefully expended upon it, for it not only pushes up the cost of the temporary houses but also the cost of other prefabricated houses, and also helps to push up the cost of all traditional building. People dealing in the traditional method say that the Government are willing to pay £1,600 for an aluminium house which, if I remember rightly, is of some 700 superficial feet against the 900 superficial feet of the traditional house. They say, "If these are the prices the Government are willing to pay, there is no necessity for us to burst ourselves"—using again a colloquial phrase—"in trying to cut down our costs to the point at which we cannot see any profit for ourselves."
For this programme and for the greater programme of the traditional houses, direct cost accounting is very desirable indeed. Although the Minister has gone some way, I hope that he will be able to meet us still further, and assure us that before Parliament parts with this Bill, he will be able to give figures. I hope that, first, he will make a statement saying what the White Paper will be and, second, I hope that he will lay figures showing what the figures actually are, before Parliament is asked to pass a sponge over this whole transaction and give up its control, as it certainly will, once this Measure reaches the Statute Book.

Colonel Dower: It must be obvious to the Parliamentary Secretary how concerned hon. Members on all sides of the Committee are on this question. I would suggest most respectfully that this is not a party Amendment. It is not one made for party capital. Several hon. Members opposite have been even more critical of the programme of the Government than we have on this side of the Committee. They have put forward the argument that this Amendment does not go far enough; but


in this life one cannot always get the whole cake. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who said that these houses will only last for 10 years, knows perfectly well that a further lease can be acquired if necessary. The leases could be compulsorily acquired. That is done in housing every day. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said that this Amendment did not go nearly far enough.
I would like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that this House is very deeply concerned. I think that even the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will join us in saying that we would like these particulars to be published so that we can follow with interest, and not with carping criticism, the situation as it develops from day to day. I do not wish to widen the Debate, but I would point out that I am speaking because of pressure in my constituency where people are deeply worried because of the few houses which are being built. Cost bears a very close relationship to that. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make sure that he is not delayed in erecting houses in rural areas by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to meet us. We do not want to vote against this Bill, nor do we wish to continue this Debate unnecessarily. We want to feel that the Minister will meet the spirit of our Amendment. If 31st December is impossible, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend, and to say at what date the first report can be expected. May I add that, the earlier it is, the more it will meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: So far as this Amendment submitted by my two right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is concerned. I do not think it goes nearly far enough. This Amendment really calls for a report at the end of the year, and, as far as I understand the position, after that, we shall have another report every six months. Frankly, that is not what I want. I go very much further, and I take a point of view very close to that of the hon. Member for

Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who put forward an extraordinarily strong case for something even more powerful than this Amendment. His point of view was that this prefabrication was an experiment that might have a tremendous future, not only in connection with housing, but also concerning the development of the trade of this country. For that reason, and because of the enormous increase in the cost of these houses, I think it is essential that we should really get down to the facts concerning this increase and the reason for it at the present time.

The Amendment will give us a report on what happens in the next six months, but it will really mean a very considerable time-lag, and I would emphasise that. After what has been said, not by one hon. Gentleman opposite but, on two or three occasions, by two and even three hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they have asked that the whole future of this industry should be borne in mind, there is some point in the request that the Parliamentary Secretary should look into the matter again. I do not expect him to treat this matter seriously, because, on the Front Bench, they do not realise that housing is a serious matter. It is the back benchers and the Members of the Conservative Party who do that, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman was laughing at the idea of getting this business on a proper footing.

This is an Amendment which I shall support if it goes to a Division. I am very disappointed, and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's answer means anything at all. I would like to see the hon. Member for Mitcham put down a proper Amendment for the purpose of forcing an inquiry into the whole conduct of this business about these houses in the last few years, and he may be able to do so at another stage of the Bill. If he were able to do so, I would willingly help him in every possible way. It is not satisfactory for the people of this country to know that they are paying this vast sum of £1,6oo for houses that are only temporary and which have been attacked on every side, and it is also most discouraging to those builders who are building good permanent houses to see the alarming price which the Government are allowing to be paid for these temporary houses.

Mr. Durbin: Three points have been raised in the discussion on this Amendment. So far as that which concerns the date of the published statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is prepared to make, my information is that all the figures are now assembled and available, and that it is only a question of printing. Unless there are unforeseen difficulties, we can undertake to provide it before the end of the current year. As far as I can see there is really no substantial difference between the proposal made from this side of the Committee and the Amendment. The only point of discussion has been whether a White Paper, surveying the whole story up to date, or progress reports, at six monthly intervals, is the more suitable way of providing the information which hon. Members quite rightly require.

Mr. Sparks: Could the hon. Gentleman, at the same time, include in such a White Paper particulars of the number of houses erected on land held on lease?

Mr. Durbin: I think I would like to point out that, as the programme is now drawing to a conclusion, a White Paper surveying the whole story is really more suitable than a progress report, since a progress report would only apply to very recent events, and 90 per cent of the story would not be told.

Commander Galbraith: May I interrupt? The hon. Gentleman will realise that, when the programme has come to an end, it would be advisable for us to know the final result.

Mr. Durbin: I can meet that point by saying that any further information, after publication of the statement, can be supplied to anyone who is interested in it. I must repeat, that six-monthly progress reports scarcely seem to be the best way of dealing with a story which is 90 per cent. told already. It would seem to be very odd to have a progress report only referring to the last 10 per cent. of the programme. For these reasons, we hope the Amendment will be withdrawn, on the understanding that the information asked for regarding the breakdown of the increase in cost, shall be supplied in the way in which they were supplied in the White Paper on the original estimate.
There is one last point. I wish to say something about the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for

Mitcham (Mr. Braddock). I think we feel very strongly in the Ministry of Works that it would be quite incorrect to take these figures out of their economic context and regard them as a test of the principle of prefabrication. I should like to explain that, of course, the costs of the prefabricated types ought to be linked up with those of the permanent prefabricated houses. There is in existence in draft already, a report of the progress in the prefabrication of permanent houses as a whole, but it is not possible at this moment to give a date for the publication of the report. I can, "however, assure hon. Members that cost investigations are being continued and that the report will be produced in a reasonable time.
I am now able to make available to the Committee the figures of the cost of the aluminium house for which I was asked. The amount of aluminium going into the house is two tons. The ratio in which that is derived from secondary scrap and from virgin aluminium is 75 per cent. scrap and 25 per cent. virgin aluminium. The price of the scrap has increased a little from £46 per ton to an average, for some months recently, of £51 per ton, and the price of virgin aluminium has declined from about £85 per ton to £80 per ton. The net effect upon the price of the house is not considerable. A very slight increase in price is to be derived from balancing those two figures. Therefore, almost the whole of the increased cost of 40 per cent., to which I referred, is due to increased aluminium content for the two reasons I gave—change in specification and steel substitution. The accountancy practice has been to add the market price of the scrap and of the virgin aluminium to the cost of the house. It is not a question of one department making a profit at the expense of another. If this practice were not followed, there would, of course, be a hidden subsidy on the aluminium house. I can only repeat the guarantee that we will produce the breakdown of the costs that has been asked for. We cannot help thinking that a White Paper would be a much better way of doing it, in view of the stage reached in the programme, and that White Paper should be available before the end of the year.

Mr. C. Williams: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) made the point that some of these houses were


built on land which would have to go back at the end of 10 years. I do not think that is possible. Could the hon. Gentleman deal with that point, because it is one of value. I feel sure that it is covered from the point of view that the Ministry have full powers to go on with the site, and to use it either for the continuation of the houses or for another purpose.

Mr. Durbin: I tried to make it quite clear that the legal basis of the temporary housing programme is a 10-year one. Although a number of these houses, particularly the aluminium houses, are technically and physically capable of a much longer life than that, there is no intention on the part of the Government to go back on the guarantee given, that this is a temporary housing programme, and, therefore, only for 10 years. As far as the continuation of their maintenance beyond the 10-year period is concerned, that is a matter for the interested local authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Am I to understand that there is no profit on these houses?

Mr. Durbin: No, Sir; it is Government finance.

Commander Galbraith: I appreciate the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this matter, and I agree with him that it would be practically the same thing as that which is in the Amendment if we were supplied with a White Paper giving the information which he has suggested it should contain. That would help us very materially, and I am willing to accept his assurance that such a White Paper will be produced before the end of the present year. That, I think, meets us a little more than half way. But there is also the point, to which the Parliamentary Secretary himself referred, that we are drawing towards the end of the programme. Can the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works tell us whether it is his intention, when the programme is completed, that we should have a full report covering the whole of the programme and showing exactly what the cost has been? If he could tell us what he has in mind about that, I think that would complete the matter.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): If there were any material changes in the costs, and so on, during the period, I certainly think that should be done. This programme will end in May next year.

Commander Galbraith: Not for Scotland.

Mr. Key: Except for Scotland; that is only a very small part of the programme. It is not a question of it not being important, but only of it not affecting the whole. As I have said, if there were any material changes, it would be quite right and proper to publish an addendum to the White Paper giving the particulars. I would be prepared to do that on the completion of the programme.

Commander Galbraith: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer in the spirit in which it is made. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FEEDINGSTUFFS RATIONING

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move:
That the Feedingstuffs (Rationing) (Amendment No, 3) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No.:990), dated 13th September, 1947. a copy of which was presented on 30th October. be annulled.
I wish to say at the outset that, although the names which appear on this Prayer are all names of Scottish Members, this is a matter which affects not only Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom. I have had a good deal to do with the Scottish Office on matters relating to this, and I am bound to say that I should like to have seen one representative of the Scottish Office here this afternoon, although I quite realise that this Prayer has been reached rather sooner than might have been anticipated. I would mention, however, that I gave the Scottish Office notice that I was raising the matter. I particularly desire to attract the attention of the House to paragraph I (c) of the amending


order. First, I shall attempt to describe to the House the system as laid down in the original order No. 1498 and the way that has worked, with particular reference to feedingstuffs for cattle, the reason for the change which it is now sought to effect, so far as I can understand it, and the effect that the order under discussion will produce.
Under order No. 1498, the consumer of any feedingstuff—and by "consumer" is not meant the consumer in the normal sense of the word, the pig, cow, horse or chicken, but the purchaser—has to apply to the agricultural executive committee for a ration in accordance with very complicated scales which, I was informed by the Scottish Office, are laid down from time to time by the Minister of Agriculture and are based on feedingstuffs availability notified to the right hon. Gentleman by the Minister of Food. The agricultural executive committee forward the application, if they approve it, to the Ministry or to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, which issues the appropriate coupons. These coupons have to be deposited with the supplier of feeding-stuffs within 15 days of the date of issue or by the 15th day of the month, and are valid for the month of issue and the following month. In turn, the supplier has to hand the coupons to the Ministry or the Department of Agriculture in Scotland in the second month, and receives in exchange corresponding buying permits. The feedingstuffs have to be obtained within the period of validity of the coupons. That is two months in the case of cattle. The whole question turns on what is meant by the word "obtained."
As the law stood before this amending order was introduced, it was sufficient for the consumer to deposit his coupons and to enter into a contract of sale. Whether this is what the order intended or not, this is in fact what was happening all over the country. In a Ministry of Food circular these words appear:
Since the introduction of rationing in 1941, the Feeding Stuffs (Rationing) Order has, of course, been administered on the basis that the rationed feeding stuffs called for by a ration document must be delivered within the period of validity stated upon the document.
The order may have been administered in that form, but, in fact, that is not the way in which it has been implemented all

over the country. Dairy farmers, in particular, find that their needs vary from month to month, and that they cannot be reduced readily to a formula laid down by the Ministry of Food or the Department of Agriculture which can hold good for the whole country, irrespective of climatic or local conditions. The farmers themselves consider—and I think rightly so—that they are not only the best but the only possible judges of the right way in which to use the feedingstuffs to which they are entitled and which have been allocated to them, if they are to achieve the maximum milk production.
A formula based on milk production of the herd in the previous two months, or, in the case of winter calving, on the estimated sales in any two months—not the previous two months—between October and February, I think, is the formula on which the allocation is based. That has to be taken up in two months. It does not help very much—although it helps a little, admittedly—to say that the farmer can name the two months in which it has to be taken up. I will make that point clearer later. The Ministry say, "No, this allocation is made for a specific period, and it must be taken up in that period, because if you do not take it up then, it means that you do not need it."
I am glad to see that one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland is now with us. I was told at the Scottish Office, I think by the hon. Gentleman himself, "After all, this applies to food rationing for human beings." The two cannot be compared. Indeed, nowadays it may be that the feedingstuffs required for dairy cattle are rather more varied than is the diet to which we ourselves are entitled. In any case, for the production of winter milk extra feedingstuffs are required, but it is never possible to say with precision in any one case when they are going to be needed; nor is the formula of calculating previous milk production, or even estimated milk production, sufficiently fine to enable it to be applied in each individual case. It is ultimately on the judgement of the individual farmer that the production of milk in his herd must depend.
The attitude of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is quite illogical. They admit that the farmer can take delivery


of his allocation and then not use it, or use it exactly when he chooses. What they do not admit, or what they have not wanted to admit, is that the farmer should be permitted not to take delivery, but leave it with the grain merchant and then take delivery when he chooses. Generally speaking, when coupons are deposited with suppliers the corresponding supplies are taken when they are required. Whether the Ministry like it or not, that is what has been happening all over the country. I do not know whether that was with the condescension of the Ministry in other parts of the country, but certainly that condescension was not extended to the South-West corner of Scotland.
I do not suppose anyone would contend that human nature or animal needs are likely to be any different in the South-West corner of Scotland from what they are in the rest of the island. In any case, the proportion of infringements in that part of Scotland were very much higher than elsewhere, and it was on the grain merchants in that area that the Ministry of Food waged war. I can only suppose that the procurator-fiscal found so little to do in this very law-abiding corner of the island that he had to occupy himself with prosecutions arising under the original order. Many of these prosecutions succeeded, although, to judge by the penalties inflicted, the breaches were recognised by the course to be of a fairly technical nature.
When, however, one prosecution failed, the Crown, having of course much more funds than the grain merchants, and, no doubt, the grain merchants having contributed to those funds, appealed to the Court of Session. The issue there was simply whether it was legal for goods against which coupons had been deposited to be delivered after the expiry of the two months' period. The court unanimously found that there was no clear and unambiguous provision in the order that property in the goods must pass within two months by delivery or by appropriation to the order, coupled with an entry in the supplier's books. In addition to that, to quote from the court order:
The reasons for such deferred deliveries pending which, at the consumer's request, the goods were held or stored until required by the consumers for immediate use, as explained in the case, showed that postponement was dictated by prudent management,

caused no prejudice to the national or other interest and was arranged in the bona fide belief that it involved no breach of the terms of the Order.
So it was decided by the Court of Session that common sense should prevail. What did the bureaucrats then do? They published this order to defeat prudent management and the national interest. Under this order, delivery of the goods must be made within the two months period of validity of the coupons or, failing that, the goods must be invoiced and, to quote from the order,
identified and appropriated to the contract of sale.
No doubt, before long we shall require a further expenditure of public money to establish the exact meaning of those words. If it is intended to mean that the feedingstuffs must be mixed, sacked and placed in a corner with a label on them—if that is intended to be the identification of the feedingstuffs—then that is not in the national interest, nor is it in the interests of the milk consumer, because if that happens the feedingstuffs deteriorate after being mixed. In consequence, the grain merchant, who has had a great deal of trouble already, will be running into more trouble, especially as the order provides that:
the burden of proving that the rationed feedingstuff in question was so identified and appropriated shall be on the supplier.
I may be asked, "Why should not the farmer take the goods and store them?" The answer is that his storage accommodation, even if it is adequate—and in most cases farmers have not adequate storage accommodation—is, in general, vastly inferior to the storage accommodation of grain merchants. In consequence, if farmers take delivery it means that the feedingstuffs will deteriorate if not used at once. We know that feedingstuffs are not always used at once, and there is nothing that the Ministry can do to make them be used at once. Therefore, why should the Ministry not bow to the inevitable and allow much greater latitude in this matter?
The real truth of the matter is that there is no justification for so short a period of coupon validity as two months. There was some justification for it during the war, because at that time it was desk-able to have stored feedingstuffs spread out over as wide an area as possible, in case communications broke down, and


in case the warehouses of grain merchants were bombed and accumulated stores destroyed. I should like to read to the House what one of the foremost agricultural authorities in Scotland says: He says:
The simple facts are that the great majority of farmers have not adequate storage, while if the merchants comply with the order and mix the food it is bound to deteriorate. Also, feedingstuffs laid up in this way take up far more space than can be spared. I have never heard a sufficient reason advanced why the validity of these coupons should not be four months instead of two, and that would meet the whole difficulty.
Nor have I, although I have had two long interviews with the Scottish Office and a long and very courteous letter from the Under-Secretary of State himself. What is required is that the present provisions, so far as the surrendering of coupons by suppliers is concerned, should be retained—there is no objection to the two months' period for that purpose, for the surrender of coupons—while, at the same time, the period of delivery should be extended to six months or, at the very least, to four. There is really no reason why Ministers should not impress upon their own civil servants—it is up to Ministers to do it—that, when all is said and done, the person who really knows the job is the man on the ground, and that the civil servant, sitting in his office, no matter how intelligent he may be, cannot be expected to know exactly how these feedingstuffs should be used.
I hope that the Minister will take back this order, and that he will fix an allocation and leave it to the farmer to use it if he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. After all, what the farmer wants is to produce the maximum amount of milk—in the case I am particularly dealing with—at the lowest possible price. It is very unlikely that he will take the goods unless he really wants them, unless—and this is why he may take them—fearing he will lose them if he does not take them within two months, he takes the goods in case he needs them. I hope, at any rate, there will not be any of the allegations I have sometimes heard that the object is simply to increase the amount of feedingstuffs to be taken in order that they may be misused—that they may be used for feeding calves instead of cattle. I do not think there will be any substance in such an accusation.
I hope I shall not be told that the grain merchants want to sell as much grain as possible. This matter was brought to my attention by the Scottish Council of the National Farmers' Union and not, in this case, by the grain merchants. It is the dairy farmer who wants to see this order annulled and the time of delivery extended. The grain merchants, after all, are quite capable of looking after their own stocks of feedingstuffs and of selling as much as they are lawfully entitled to sell. I hope that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will not simply tell us that it is in the grain merchants' own interest that this two months' period is imposed, because, obviously, the grain merchants must be protected by knowing that there is not an unlimited liability for the supply of feedingstuffs. That can, of course, be covered by fixing a term of, say, six months or four months; and after that it is their own prudent management that will dictate how they will get their stocks in the freshest possible condition to their customers.
Everybody knows that feedingstuffs are in short supply and that is the reason they should be used to the best possible advantage. That is why we have moved this Motion tonight. If it is insisted that the feedingstuffs must be taken up or, at least, ear-marked we shall have waste and misuse. Farmers with storage space will be apt to take their allocations whether they need them or not and whether they ever use them or not for fear of losing them; because farmers do not actually know what they are going to take until they actually ask for delivery. They cannot say, "We want so much of that two months ahead." It does not work that way. I very strongly urge the hon. Lady to leave this discretion to the farmers, bearing in mind that it is in their own interest to produce as much milk as possible at the lowest cost possible.
This is my last point. This order deliberately puts thousands of farmers on the wrong side of the law. It has been the practice to undertake the counter value and to take delivery when delivery is required. This order insists that delivery should be taken within a certain time or, at least, in a certain way. I would emphasise that the Minister has set out to make this illegal, despite—or, perhaps, because of—the decision of the Scottish Court of Session. I do not think


that this is a correct way of treating the law. It has been decided by the Court of Session that this is the correct interpretation of the existing order. That being so, surely the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend should have left things as they were. Can she say the thing was working badly? Can she say this order will make any improvement? I submit that she cannot.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I beg to second the Motion.
The Motion has been moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that there is really little that I can add to the excellent argument he has put forward. The order we have before us tonight amends the main Feeding Stuffs Order. I believe that the purpose for which it was introduced was to clarify the position which gave rise to certain prosecutions. Unfortunately, it has gone rather beyond that. In clarifying the position, the official mind has tied the farmer and the supplier of animal feedingstuffs in an unfortunate knot, perhaps unintentionally. I hope very much that in her reply the hon. Lady will undertake to investigate the whole thing again, and consider laying another order in the light of the evidence we have put before her.
There is no doubt that the order is not operating in a satisfactory manner at the moment. We are all aware that there is only so much livestock in the country and only so much animal feedingstuffs. The best possible use has to be made of what we have available. I am sure that, by revision of this order, better use could be made of what we have available than Is at present being made, and the waste which I fear will arise under the order be avoided. There is no doubt about the need for rationing animal feedingstuffs, and the broad principles of rationing. The whole argument turns on how the rations have to be taken up. In considering that, we must bear in mind the storage space of the grain merchants and of the farmers, as well as the availability of transport at all times of the year. Having heard what has been said, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this order is not satisfactory, and that it will be revised after consultation between those who are carrying out this work and her officials

This order represents the cold dead hand of officialdom, and it does not take the broad view it would have taken had those in the trade been consulted.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I wish to deal with a point which has not so far been mentioned. In my part of the world, the working of the old order was such that I am afraid we always broke the law. We deposited our coupons, and we took up our rations when we wanted them. Only on one occasion have I had any trouble. I approached the Ministry of Food, and the matter was put right. It was the case where a Ministry of Food official happened to come along and find that these rations were not being taken up, and one of my constituents was refused his ration. I want to put the practical position. If the Ministry of Food, in producing these orders, would consult a little more often those who have to do the job, I am sure that we should not have orders which are very difficult to work, and cause the Parliamentary Secretary to spend so many late nights in this House. If the practical organisations are consulted in future, it will be to the advantage of everyone.
In the early autum of the year, many farmers wish to thresh out their winter oats for seed for sale, and also for straw ready for consumption by their cattle. If the farmer sells his seed oats for seed to the grain merchant, he gets an allocation in their place. Under this order, he must take out his rations within two months of the coupons being deposited. The farmer sells his oats because he wants to get more for seed than he would get in the normal way. Possibly, he may have more than he wants to consume. He might be rearing calves, and he might want to keep the calves going for six or eight months through the winter. The essential thing is that these feedingstuffs must be fresh. If the farmer is compelled, in September or October, to take up his allocation for the next six months, there is the certainty—not the possibility—that the feedingstuffs will become musty, and in some cases mouldy, particularly in the case of linseed cake, which is the form of feedingstuff the farmer wants to replace the corn he has sold. If linseed cake stands during the winter, it invariably goes mouldy, and the young calves cannot thrive on it.
From the practical point of view, it would be to the advantage of the industry if this order were withdrawn and a fresh one issued. I am sure that the English National Farmers' Union take this view, but I appreciate that Scotland always gets in a little before we Southerners. If the Ministry of Food will consult the English National Farmers' Union, I am sure that they will agree with what I have said. If linseed cake could be spread out over the six months, it would be to the advantage of the grain merchants. They do not want to buy all their feedingstuffs in the autumn, but prefer to buy as and when they think their clients will want them. I see no reason why this order is necessary, or why we should have to take our feedingstuffs within two months of depositing our coupons.

6.48 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this plea very carefully. I have some experience of this matter, and I fill out the detailed forms for feedingstuffs myself. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady also knows the detailed information that is required, and how complicated it all is. There are times when a dairy farmer can save a number of coupons. He may have more home-produced food than he requires for the moment, and can therefore put his coupons on one side. If he has available space to keep the corn from the miller, it is much more likely that he will use it. We all know how easy it is to spend money which is readily available. In the same way, there is a temptation to use corn if it is on the spot. I suggest it would be to everyone's advantage if it could be kept at the millers until required.
Many farmers, not only in my part of the country but in other places, have no facilities for keeping corn. They may have an over-dose of rats and mice, and in many cases it is physically impossible to keep substantial quantities of corn in good condition for any length of time. It may not be quite so easy for the civil servants if the coupons are allowed to run on for four or six months. I agree that it is not quite so tidy for their books, but now that the war is over and there is no risk of ships sinking and so forth, it would be better if it were made legal for these coupons to run over a period. I can vouch for what has been said. I

know that in many parts of the country it is customary to bank coupons and to use them as required, but that has now been shown to be illegal. It would be of great advantage if the time were extended. This is obviously not a political matter, but is a question of making the best use of our grain so that we can get the maximum quantity of eggs, chickens and milk. I hope the hon. Lady will carefully consider this matter before making her reply.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I wish to associate myself with this Motion, which has been so lucidly moved and cogently argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). In accordance with Parliamentary custom, I at once declare my personal interest in this matter as a dairy farmer. Of course, it is not really dairy farming which will be handicapped if the Parliamentary Secretary does not turn a favourable ear to our pleas; it is all classes of agriculturists. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) put forward a plea on behalf of the stock raiser, the beef producer. I hope the hon. Lady will bear that plea very much in mind, because the Government must adjust the balance between the farmer and the stockbreeder. Here is one small way, although, at the same time, it is a big way, in which the Parliamentary Secretary can assist, because dairy farmers, milk producers particularly, will be most seriously handicapped if this order is not rescinded. I have had the honour to represent my constituency for more than 16 years. It adjoins the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, which produces a larger quantity of food milk. My constituency, which is even bigger, has more fertile land, and is much more suitable for the dairying branch of agriculture, produces a great deal more milk. I can see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agrees, by the expression on his countenance.
We do not move this Motion tonight in any party spirit. We are raising the matter from the point of view of practical politics, so that the greatest quantity of milk will be available to the public. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) will have more to say on this point, but the decision of the


Court of Session in Edinburgh on this matter has been made abundantly clear. The Parliamentary Secretary comes here tonight in the role of Portia, and invites us, by this order, to override the decision of that very august body which sits in Edinburgh. If I may say so, without disrespect, she is admirably cast for the role of Portia. I hope she will show herself a Portia indeed tonight, and that on due reflection she will recognise that the Court of Session have been better judges in this matter than she has shown herself to be up to date by asking the House to agree 10 this order, which would override the judgment of that body.
There is no doubt that a period of four months, or even six months, would ensure greater convenience for dairy farmers—indeed, for all farmers—and a better supply of milk than insistence upon an order which states that the surrender of coupons must take place within two months. We all know, particularly in Scotland, that few dairy farmers are so equipped to provide all the accommodation for feedingstuffs which will be necessary to secure the proper supply of milk which the Government tell us it is so neccssary to produce. Why not be broad-minded—why not adhere to the period of two months for the surrender of coupons, but have a little elasticity—Split the difference, and agree on four months? The hon. Lady looks in a particularly charming mood tonight, and if she can meet us she will earn not merely the thanks of Members who are particularly concerned with this matter, but also the farming and consuming public of Britain. If this Motion had been on the Order Paper last night, the hon. Lady might have kept for her Government the seat which the electors of Gravesend will take from them tonight.

6.57 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson: It is with some diffidence that I rise to speak on this Motion, but I do so to put a point of view which has not yet been expressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) referred particularly to linseed cakes, and said that it was necessary that farmers should take delivery only when required because if they put them into stock the cakes were liable to go mouldy. I wish to put a manufacturer's point of view. If the suggestion which has been presented to the

House, namely, that it should be possible to use the coupons, not for two months, but for four or even six months, is accepted, I ask Members to reflect on the position of the manufacturer who has to purchase his oil seeds and crush them throughout the whole year. If a farmer were permitted to take delivery of his linseed-cotton, or compound feeding cakes or any kind of oilseed cakes during four or six months at his option it would be quite impossible for the manufacturer to keep his plant continuously running, which is vital.
Oil cakes are normally sold for delivery from November to April, or May to August. The contract specifically states that delivery shall be taken in equal quantities spread over the contract period. That is done so that the manufacturer can purchase his seeds, make his contracts, and distribute his manufacturing goods equally throughout the contract period. It should be borne in mind that there is a limit to the amount of space available for storing either oil cakes or oil seeds in the seed crushers. The manufacturer is no more able to hold six months' stock than the farmer is to store six months' requirements. Therefore, I suggest that to prolong the time from two to four or six months, so far as oil seed cakes are concerned, would not be practicable. The result would be that the whole organisation of distribution through coupons would fail completely. Delivery must be taken in more or less equal quantities during the contract period. I submit that it would be unwise to increase the period from two months as at present provided under the coupon system, and I can assure hon. Members that it would not be possible for the industry to carry on if delivery were taken in the manner suggested.
Finally, I would explain to the Committee that when contracts are made to distribute equal monthly deliveries over a six months' period, in cases where any portion of the cakes is not taken within the specified month, a premium is normally charged upon those cakes; that is to say, that if they are bought for the November to April delivery, and the November portion is not moved within that month, then the buyer has to pay a penalty of 2s. 6d. or 5s. a ton because he has failed to move them. That is not done merely to extract more money from


the consumer, but to enable the industry to provide the necessary amount of seed to keep the mills running continuously night and day. That would not be possible if a buyer could take delivery just when and as he required for a period extending from four to six months, save as I have already said—in more or less equal monthly quantities during the contract period.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: The speech of the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) is one of interest from the point of view of the supplier, but it does not, in fact, bear out what, in my experience, has been the necessary practice ' of the farming community. This order, as I see it, will further complicate what is already quite sufficiently complicated, in particular for the small, mixed, family farm and people with smallholdings, such as I know in the West country. I happen to have a smallholding myself. I submit to the House that this order has been drawn up on a false analogy with petrol. The Government do not want people to use cars—I do not agree with them—but they do want people to have fowls, pigs and other livestock, and it is most important when there is a certain amount of home-grown food to fit it in with that obtained from elsewhere.
I am in total disagreement with the hon. Member for East Ealing in saying that suppliers of feedingstuffs help the farming community enormously by storing feedingstuffs for the time being, which is very necessary when one has a small farm or holding and arrangements for storage are far from extended. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Lady, who pays so much attention, as I well know, to detailed cases when they are put before her, will seriously consider this, and prevent the process going any further by which the form is becoming more important than the farm.

7.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I have on many occasions been attacked by the Scottish Members when they have thought fit to pray against our orders, and I must confess that tonight it is very pleasant to find them in a pleading mood particularly the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), who is in an

almost irresistible mood. I assure the hon. Member who moved this Motion and his seconder and supporters that we have no desire to penalise the farmers. I think they will agree with me that my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Department have made every attempt to deal with the complaints that have been forwarded to us at different times. I might remind hon. Members opposite that some of the complaints they have made tonight could have been more properly made to the Minister of Agriculture. The whole question of the period of validity of coupons is not for my Department but for the Ministry of Agriculture to settle. I think every hon. Member has addressed himself to that part of the order, which I feel is not strictly an amendment—it is a clarification. In our opinion, it is a means of establishing a position which was thought to be covered by the original order.
I think that all hon. Members who are interested in rationing will agree that the first essential in any rationing scheme is to establish the period of validity of the relevant coupons. The original order, which has now been clarified, made it quite clear to the farmers of the country that the feedingstuff coupons should be deposited within 15 days after the first day of issue, and were valid for two months. Furthermore, if the farmers did not obtain their supplies within that period, they must forfeit the foodstuffs covered by such documents. Member after Member has said tonight, to my astonishment, that the farmers have not been recognising the provisions and have, in fact, been guilty of infringement of our order.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Surely, the hon. Lady would recognise that the High Court of Judiciary of Scotland has said that this is an ambiguous order; and, naturally, people put the best interpretation in their own interests on it.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman will exercise a little more patience, I will come to the Scottish decision. That decision was, I think, at the beginning of this year, but I want to assure hon. Members that before that decision was made, it was necessary for my Department to prosecute many suppliers who were guilty of not delivering foodstuffs within the specified period. This position held until the Howie case was heard in Scotland. The


defendant's solicitor then contended that, provided the coupons were lodged within 15 days from the date of issue, the merchant had entered into a conditional sale or commitment to the farmer for feeding-stuffs which could be delivered within any time. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) quoted one of the learned judges. I think that was said on appeal by my Department against the decision. We lost that appeal, but I believe that one of the learned judges did make the comments that have been quoted. I think I am right in saying that if the hon. Member for Dumfries reads a little further down he will discover that the learned judge said it would be right and proper for my department to clarify the order. In the light of what happened during those proceedings, we thought it was right and proper to clarify the order in this way.
I should say that in delivering the judgment the learned judge said that the order was ambiguous, and it was also because of this and of other statements that were made during the course of the action that we decided to clarify the order. I would remind hon. Members opposite that there are many inexperienced farmers and suppliers who will welcome this clarification. We arc, in fact, protecting the careless farmer and supplier, careless men who perhaps because of the shortcomings of my Department do not interpret this order in the proper way and have been guilty of an infringement. Therefore, by introducing this clarification we are protecting the inexperienced and careless farmer and supplier.
The hon. Member for Dumfries mentioned the fact that we lost an appeal and, therefore, perhaps this clarification is a little improper; that, in fact, we should ignore the rulings that were made then and should sit back and let the procedure that has been adopted in the past continue. I must remind the hon. Member of this, that during that action there were many other cases pending in England. After that action we continued to prosecute suppliers who had been guilty of infringements of our orders, and although in every case defending counsel quoted the learned judge's remarks in Scotland, we were successful in them all except one. Therefore, the law is not necessarily consistent. I should say that if every farmer and supplier in the

country adopted the method advocated by the hon. Member for Dumfries—I think he said clearly that farmers should be allowed to get their feedingstuffs as they like, how they like, and when they like—

Mr. Macpherson: If they like.

Dr. Summerskill: That is even worse. He advocated that they should be allowed to get their feedingstuffs as they liked, how they liked, when they liked and if they liked.

Mr. Macpherson: I said their allocation.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Member realise that if we accepted that, it would mean that the pipeline, which brings the by-products from the flour mills and the breweries to the suppliers, would be blocked after a time? There would be complete chaos in the industry.

Mr. Macpherson: No.

Dr. Summerskill: It is absolutely necessary that there should be an orderly of take of the feedingstuffs from the different trades which are concerned with supplying them to the merchants. The hon. Member has advocated a method of procedure which would end in chaos, and I can assure him that no hon. Member who is concerned with the trade would be grateful for such a practice. I should also remind him that the enforcement officers, whose concern, of course, is with prosecuting suppliers in the event of there being a breach of our order, would find it very difficult to determine whether over-supply had been made. We would give the supplier complete freedom to retain supplies. He would have, of course, to keep a ration debit and credit account, but hon. Members who know the industry well are aware of the fact that he is not obliged to keep a record for longer than a year. Therefore, when the enforcement officer came along and asked for the record, it would be quite easy for the supplier—and he would be within his rights—to deceive the Ministry, with the result that it would be impossible for us to take action in many of these cases.
It has been put by certain hon. Members who are interested in this matter that there are exceptional cases. For instance, a farmer or a supplier may be guilty of an infringement of the order because the


weather has been bad, and the supplier has been unable to deliver the feeding-stuffs within the necessary period. Our answer to that is that if hon. Members will read the order, they will find in paragraph 22 that we have power to authorise suppliers to deliver the feedingstuffs during a period after the two months have elapsed, so that they are well covered. Hon. Members have again stressed the difficulty of farmers not being able to keep their feedingstuffs because their accommodation is limited. They have also said that if the feedingstuffs were kept by the suppliers they would deteriorate. My advisers are businessmen and not civil servants. There has been some talk by hon. Members opposite of civil servants sitting at their desks in Whitehall and it being impossible for them to understand these things. Many hon. Members know some of my advisers and recognise that they are very astute men who have been in the trade for many years. I can only quote their advice against what has been said tonight. They tell me that if this grain is kept for a long period it will not deteriorate.

Mr. Spence: It is not grain.

Dr. Summerskill: I should have said feedingstuffs. What is the answer to the man who is in a difficult position, and we want to meet him? The man who says that he wants extra feedingstuffs for his cows, and we want to meet him. I think we have met him when we say he can leave the feedingstuffs with the supplier provided they are invoiced and can be easily identified. That is quite fair. I believe every supplier who is anxious to help the farmer will be quite prepared to do this, and I cannot, therefore, think of any case where a farmer will be penalised because he has to recognise the provisions of the amended order. If hon. Members have any suggestions to make, we shall be only too pleased to consider them, but I believe I have been able to meet their chief objection when I say that the farmer can leave his feedingstuffs with the supplier, but they must be identified. If these provisions are adhered to by farmers and by suppliers, I believe there will be no difficulty in the future.

Mr. Baldwin: Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I point out that by keeping this order the Ministry will be blocking

the pipeline? A tremendous amount of seed corn is threshed out in the autumn, and the order compels farmers to take up their feedingstuffs in two months. That blocks up the pipeline. Take the case of linseed cake, which will not keep. If the Ministry's experts say it will, they do not know their job.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member is referring to seed, that is a different position. The farmer does not take it up in the same period.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Turton: It is quite clear that there is a different issue between the farmer and the manufacturer. The hon. Lady has entered into an unholy alliance with the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and when she talks about her advisers being manufacturers and keen business men, she is I presume, alluding to the hon. Member for East Ealing. She can be convicted out of her own mouth. Feedingstuffs such as linseed do not keep a long time. I gather the hon. Member for East Ealing appreciates that, because he is charging extra when he is forced to keep crushed Unseed on the premises more than one month. The hon. Lady is suggesting that if these feedingstuffs are put into store premises, they will be quite as good for feedingstuffs as they would be if they had been freshly threshed. She cannot have it both ways. If she has got the advantage of this alliance with the hon. Member for East Ealing, she must accept his arguments. Therefore, she cannot use the argument that feedingstuffs will keep some length of time.
I agree there is no large issue on this question, but I ask the hon. Lady to consider this matter and perhaps investigate whether linseed will keep. If she tries that' experiment she will see that the farmers are quite right. If she comes to that conclusion, cannot she at some later date alter things so that farmers can keep their coupons in certain circumstances for a limited period of time. The hon. Lady said it would not be easy for the enforcement officer to get the prosecutions he likes if this were allowed, because records are kept only for 12 months. There is no intention by hon. Members on this side of the House, or on my part, that this banking of coupons should go on for such a long period as 12 months. The suggestion is


that the coupons should be banked, at the most, for four to six months, and the general view is four months. When farmers had threshed their corn early in the season, they could store up their coupons for the later period when there would be a shortage of home threshed corn with which to feed the stock. That is a matter of considerable importance to the community. We are very short of feeding-stuffs at the present time and it would be a convenience to be able to bank coupons for that limited period. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady, who has been friendly and helpful in her reply, even if it was not a very satisfactory reply, will take this matter back for reconsideration.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should not have intervened had it not been for the astonishing legal doctrines enunciated by the hon. Lady in the first part of her speech. Apparently the bureaucrats think that when the courts find that their, order does not prohibit a certain thing, they are entitled to come and say, "We meant it to prohibit that thing, and we are just going on as if the court had never made their decision at all, and we are coming to Parliament to ask Parliament just to brush the court aside." I really was shocked—

Dr. Summerskill: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We so respected the ruling of the court that we have come to this House in order to implement the advice which was given us by the learned judge.

Mr. Reid: That I cannot accept for a moment. The hon. Lady, if she knows anything about courts, knows quite well that courts never advise the Government whether legislative action should be taken. It would be very wrong if they did. I have no doubt that in this case it was stated that it would be open to the Government, if so advised, to take certain legislative action, but that is a very different thing from suggesting to the Government that they would do well to do so. I really was shocked to hear the hon. Lady say that her prosecuting authorities had continued with prosecutions after the court had decided that no offence had been committed by these unfortunate people before the Order reinstituted the offence. I can think of nothing

worse than for an executive department to take the law into its own hands and to say: "These poor farmers have not got the money to appeal; we are only dealing with lay magistrates who will not look too much into the law; we intend to impose our will upon these people, although the courts have already said that in doing so we are acting illegally." That is what the hon. Lady admits.

Mr. William Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that courts do not always act in the same way, and is he suggesting that a pronouncement by a court in Scotland should be binding in this country?

Mr. Reid: If the hon. Lady is going to say she had been advised that the decision of the Scottish court was wrong, and accordingly had continued to prosecute in England, and to avoid such conflict she had brought this up for qualification it would have been another matter.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have listened to what I was saying. We had brought a number of actions, and cases had been decided in our favour before the Scottish decision. Though the right hon. Gentleman has said we have no right to continue to take action, we surely, were fortified by the decisions already made in our favour.

Mr. Reid: I really am astonished. The hon. Lady does not seem to understand that the effect of the Scottish decision in the High Court was to show that all her previous successes had been wrongly made, and if justice were to be done they ought to be washed out. But, of course, the time for appeal had passed. It happens constantly that subordinate courts will reach a wrong decision till they are put right by a higher court. The hon. Lady has no right to say that, because there were a certain number of wrong decisions before the right view was enunciated, therefore she is going on seeking for more wrong decisions before coming to this House. I do not blame the hon. Lady. She is not a lawyer. I do blame her advisers for giving her advice of this character. It seems to me to show that the bureaucrats are setting themselves up above the law courts in a manner which is certainly improper and ought to be


stopped, I very much hope one result of this Debate will be that Government Departments in future will try and keep within the law, which obviously they have not been doing here, if they accept the Scottish decision as law, and the hon. Lady has not said that they did not. If she had thought so, I trust she would have said so. Where we are now is that unless this order is approved, no offence whatever is committed. There is no offence whatever before this order is made in doing what those farmers have been prosecuted for doing. The hon. Lady is now trying to justify the imposition of this restriction. Before the order was made, the court decided that no such restriction existed. The hon. Lady may have intended it to exist, but it did not.
What is the case for the restriction? Let us examine it. The hon. Lady has not said that it can be no advantage to the farmer if he were entitled to use his coupons after four, five or six months. Indeed, she has said the opposite. She has said that there have been cases where it would be to the advantage of a farmer, and where she has tried to leave him a loophole. Therefore, I start from this position, that it would be in the interests of the farming community if this restriction were less rigid. The hon. Lady has admitted it, by the way she put her case. I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland shaking his head. If the hon. Lady is right in saying, as she has said, that it has been necessary to make provision in a number of cases—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Exceptional cases.

Mr. Reid: Very well, then. Is it suggested that there are cases which suffer any drawback if they are called upon to obey the terms of the order? We might have had some statement to that effect on the technical, fanning side. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell us whether it is his view that there is no prejudice whatever to any farmer who obeys this restriction, apart from the few exceptional cases. Admittedly there are some exceptions. The hon. Lady has said that they are provided for by storage in the merchants' premises, on the footing that no kind of foodstuff ever

goes bad in a few months. She mentioned grain, and then corrected herself.
I quite understand that the hon. Lady has been advised by her advisers that grain, if it is properly looked after, does not go bad. Of course, it does not. If the wet does not reach it and the rats cannot get at it, why should it go bad? That does not apply to a lot of this mixed foodstuff. I do not think the hon. Lady has been advised about that. If there are exceptional cases where it would be an imposition to require the farmer to take delivery within two months, as she has admitted, and if that farmer is entitled to the mixed type of foodstuff which does go bad, then the hon. Lady has tried to provide protection for him and has failed. Therefore, she ought to try to find another protection for him. It would not give much difficulty.
The hon. Lady has said, "We cannot have everybody doing this, because it would clog up the wheels." Is it not rather remarkable that before the war there was no trouble if people entered into arrangements with each other? They were free to do so. We never heard that the wheels of industry would be clogged up. Somehow or other, business men were able to cope with these matters. I suppose that postwar conditions have altered the situation and that we could not have the general use of this freedom.
What is going to happen to the person who asks for postponement of delivery? What is going to happen when the material does go musty or bad? Will the hon. Lady consider those points, and whether she proposes to make any provision for it? If it is a case regarding grain, it only requires a merchant to take a little extra trouble to put the grain into a bag. The bag goes out of use until the grain is delivered. A label is tied on it. That is all that is needed, a little extra trouble. If the hon. Lady feels that putting grain into a bag and tying a label on if is really thwarting some great national purpose, I confess I do not see it.
What about the other kind of foodstuff? The hon. Lady has been badly advised about the law. I speak as one who has had the responsibility for no less than nine years of prosecuting in Scotland. I think she might think again about the practical side of the matter. I do not put myself forward as an expert, but it seems to


me that the hon. Lady has been advised upon only half the case.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. N. Maepherson: I hope we have not heard the hon. Lady's last word on this matter. She has invited further Comments. We would like to hear a little bit more from her as to whether she is prepared to reconsider this matter. The truth is that the case she has answered was not the case which was put to her. She answered the case for simply withdrawing the order and not replacing it with anything else, but we are not suggesting that. We are suggesting that the order should be withdrawn and the delivery period extended. The best opinion both in this House and outside it seems to be that the right delivery period is not two months but four months.
The hon. Lady has not presented any case to show that a four months' period of delivery would upset the flow of supplies. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) was concerned, from the manufacturer's point of view, and I dare say quite rightly, that the evenness of the flow of his products should not be interfered with. My hon., Friend the Member for East Ealing reminds me that he has no interest of a personal character in this matter and that he was only putting the manufacturer's point of view. We want to get an improvement in milk production, and manufacturers will be able to get rid of the oil cake that they are able to supply, and much more, if they could produce it. It is only a question of their saying what they have available to supply, and the ration is then made up on that basis.
It seems to me that where the right hon. Lady—I am sorry, I anticipate. I should say the hon. Lady—has not quite met the case is that she seems to think that we are advocating the removal of all restrictions. She stated that I said that farmers should take their allocations if they liked. Indeed, they are urged by the Government not to take their allocations if they do not want them. Half our case is that there will probably be less likelihood of their taking them if the period is extended, because the farmers will know exactly what they require. They will not have to anticipate a need that may not arise. She mentioned that I also spoke about taking them when they liked; yes, of course, but within the four months' period. I

added "How they liked." The difficulty at the moment is that under the order they may have to order certain types of foodstuffs, and when the time for delivery comes they may find they would rather replace that type with another. They will under this order be unable to do so. For those reasons the four months' period is most certainly better. There is no difficulty at all with the grain merchants. They will still continue to put in their monthly stock returns so that the Ministry will be able to maintain control, and in general it will work out. The fallacy on which the Ministry are working is that they think they can control each cow's consumption in the same way as they control each human individual's consumption in food rationing. That cannot be done. If they think that, they will continue to meet disappointments.
Here is another very important point. It has been clearly shown by the Scottish courts that this order was ambiguous. That being the case, the Minister has only to consider the vast number of people who have been interpreting the previous order in the sense most favourable to themselves. All those people will now be upset. By the new amendment they are all put on the wrong side of the law. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) said, it is uterly shocking to all of us that when there was any doubt or ambiguity about the matter the Ministry should have gone on with prosecutions. I hope that most of the prosecutions to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred were not on the same point. Many of the prosecutions which have arisen out of this order have not been on exactly this point. If she takes this matter back and looks at it again, she will find that it is expedient in the national interest to increase the period from two months to four months as far as the delivery date is concerned

7.42 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the House will allow me just to answer that point. I agree that I did not deal with the four months' period, but the reason is the same. If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) was asking us to treat his own area of South West Scotland in this way, that might be practicable so far as storage was concerned. It would, of course, be wrong in the case of an order in this House which must cover the


whole country. If we made an order covering the whole country to give merchants the right to keep feedingstuffs for four months, it would mean that probably every farmer in the country would avail himself of that right.

Mr. N. Macpherson: indicated dissent.

Dr. Summerskill: He might. In that case it would be quite impossible for the merchants of the country to carry on their trade. Their accommodation is limited and they would be unable to bring the

feedingstuffs from the producing points and from the ports. It is for that reason and because, as the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) quite rightly said, there is this danger of blocking the pipe line that we cannot even admit of four months.

Question put,
That the Feeding Stuffs (Rationing) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1990), dated 13th September, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 20th October, be annulled.
The House divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 211.

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[7.44 p.m


Amory, D Heathcoat
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Beechman, N. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V


Bennett, Sir P.
Howard, Hon. A
Reid, Rt. Hon. J S. C. (Hillhead)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Challen, C.
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cole, T. L.
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smith, E P (Ashford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selywn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Studholme, H. G.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, A D
Marlowe, A A H.
Wadsworth, G


Donner, P W
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drayson, G. B
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Maude, J C
York, C.


Duthie, W. S
Medlicott, F
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Erroll, F. J
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Sir John Barlow and


Gammans, L. D.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Niall Macpherson.


Granville, E (Eye)
Osborne, C





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Callaghan, James
Durbin, E F. M


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Carmichael, James
Dye, S.


Alpass, J H
Castle, Mrs. B A.
Edwards, A (Middlesbrough, E.)


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Chamberlain, R A
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attewell, H. C.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Austin, H Lewis
Chater, D
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Awbery, S. S
Chetwynd, G. R
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Ayles, W. H
Cluse, W. S
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Cobb, F. A.
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)


Bacon, Miss A
Cocks, F. S
Ewart, R


Baird, J.
Collick, P.
Fairhurst, F


Balfour, A
Collindridge, F.
Fernyhough, E


Barton, C.
Colman, Miss G. M
Follick, M.


Belcher. J. W
Cook, T F
Foot, M. M.


Benson, G
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Forman, J. C.


Berry, H.
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Bing, G. H C
Grossman, R H. S
Gibbins, J


Binns, J.
Daggar, G.
Gibson, C. W


Blenkinsop, A
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W)
Glanville, J. E (Consett)


BIyton, W R
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gooch, E. G.


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gordon-Walker, P C


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Delargy, H. J
Grenfell, D. R


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Diamond, J.
Grey, C. F


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dobbie, W
Grierson, E


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Dodds, N. N
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)


Burden, T W
Donovan, T
Griffiths, Rt Hon J. (Llanelly)


Burke, W. A.
Dumpleton, C W
Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)




Gunter, R J.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Guy, W. H.
Medland, H. M.
Stamford, W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Middleton, Mrs. L
Steele, T.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mikardo, Ian.
Stubbs, A. E.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mitchison, G. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.
Swingler, S.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Nally, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)
O'Brien, T.
Titterington, M. F.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Orbach, M.
Tolley, L.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paget, R. T
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pargiter, G. A
Usborne, Henry


Janner, B.
Parker, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jay, D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushclitfe)
Walker, G. H


John, W.
Pearson, A
Warbey, W. N.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Perrins, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Watson, W. M,


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Keenan, W.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Key, C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


King, E. M.
Ranger, J.
West, D. G.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Reeves, J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Leonard, W.
Richards, R.
Wigg, George


Leslie, J. R
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wilkes, L.


Levy, B. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lipson, D. L.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lyne, A. W.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


McAllister, G.
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williamson, T.


McGovern, J.
Sharp, Granville
Woodburn, A.


Mack, J. D.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widne)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McKinlay, A. S.
Shurmer, P.



McLeavy, F.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mainwaring, W. H,
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Mr. Simmons and


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Skinnard, F W.
Mr. Wilkins.


Marquand, H. A.
Sorenson, R. W.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CANNOCK CHASE (PUBLIC ACCESS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I am aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is a splendid opportunity for a back bencher but I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House, though I hope that the fact that the Adjournment Motion has come on early will enable a number of my hon. Friends who represent the county of Staffordshire to participate in this Debate and to express the feelings of large numbers of people upon the matter which I intend to raise. This is primarily a constituency matter, but it is also one which concerns a large number of people in the West Midlands beyond the bounds of my constituency, and, indeed, concerns people all over the country who are anxious to see the preservation of rural amenities in Great Britain.
First, there is the question of the area of Cannock Chase in Eastern Staffordshire as a rural amenity and, secondly, the maintenance of public access to this area. Cannock Chase covers some 30,000 acres, of which 24,000 acres are scheduled today as a wild life conservation area by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. It is a large and undulating piece of open countryside, relatively unspoiled, a great part of which has for some time now been maintained by the Forestry Commission. The first point I want to make is that it is regarded by thousands of people as a beauty spot, that it contains many lovely beauty spots of wild nature, that on parts of the Chase still rare flowers survive, and that thousands of people in the West Midlands are concerned to maintain this area as a rural amenity. Secondly, from time immemorial common access to Cannock Chase has been maintained and, in modern times, it has become in the summer months a week-end playground for many thousands of people and a particular attraction for ramblers and


those who like to go across the open parts of the country. In the third place, this area is close to, and easily accessible from highly urbanised and heavily congested areas of the West Midlands. It is reasonably available to the people who live in the vast conurbation around Birmingham, to the people of the Black Country, and to the heavily urbanised and developed areas of the West Midlands generally.
As I have said, a great deal of this area is classified today by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning as a conservation area for wild life, but I hope this evening to get from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning a statement to the effect that it is a prime objective of his Department to maintain the whole of Cannock Chase as a rural amenity of open countryside, to maintain the rights of public access that have been maintained in the past to that area, and to develop it, as it is regarded by very many people in the West Midlands, as a potential National Park for the future.
In both world wars parts of Cannock Chase have been requisitioned and used by the military authorities. In the first world war there was a fairly considerable encampment in Brocton near Stafford, and some other parts were taken over, but by the end of 1920 all these had been surrendered and the whole of the Chase had once again been restored. In 1939, naturally more extensive areas of this open countryside were taken over. Part was taken over by the War Office for an encampment and for a small arms range; part was taken by the Royal Air Force for a range for the demolition of explosives and for a technical training school. In 1942, nearly 400 acres were taken by the Ministry of Supply as a testing ground for the armoured fighting vehicles produced in the factories of the towns in the West Midlands. So a fairly considerable area was taken over during the second world war between 1939 and 1945.
I believe I am right in saying that it was the natural expectation of everybody living around Cannock Chase that shortly after the second world war came to an end these requisitions would be surrendered, as had been done after the first world war; that these areas would be restored as rural amenities, and that public

access would once more be open. Nevertheless, today, nearly two years after the end of the war, we still find the War Office holding on tenaciously to nearly 500 acres of Cannock Chase, and we find the Royal Air Force holding on equally tenaciously to another 460 acres for a technical training school and a range, where they are demolishing explosives day by day and not so far from a residential area in my constituency.
What concerns the people in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, the Rural District Council of Staffordshire, which initiated the attempt to get these areas derequisitioned some time ago, and many other local authorities which have since taken up the matter, including Staffordshire County Council, is not only that the War Office and the Royal Air Force are not relinquishing their requisition two years after the second world war, but that now the Services have made increased demands for land on Cannock Chase, which would sterilise and deny access of the public to a much larger area than ever before. The Services have now disclosed that they desire a total area of 1,850 acres on Cannock Chase, which is rather more than they had during the period of the war. The Ministry of Supply, who had given up their tank testing ground on Cannock Chase, desire permanently to establish a testing ground in this area for armoured vehicles. The War Office desires permanently to have an encampment and a small arms range. In addition to the natural expectation that some land would be wanted by the Territorial Army today, to which there is no considerable objection among the people, we see the demand to continue the occupation established by the military authorities during the war, and to extend that occupation.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that this is not merely taking away nearly 2,000 acres from the people of that district, but that larger areas will be denied to public access, whatever spokesman of Service Departments may say, because these areas are being used as ranges for small arms, or for demolition of explosives. Whereas today it is merely a matter of 1,000 acres occupied by the War Office on Cannock Chase, a much larger area is denied to those who desire to ramble across the Chase, and to visit beauty spots. The people I represent,


in the West Midlands are very much concerned by this increased demand for land, and their concern is by no means allayed by the fact that, recently, further demands have been disclosed. We find now that the War Office wants a part of Dove-dale, and their ambitions extend to Upper Hulme and the national park in the northern part of Staffordshire. They wish to extend where there is very little open countryside today, and people are wondering how far these demands are going, and if this is the thin end of a powerful wedge. Whatever may be said by the Services about maintenance of access in the areas they take over, if in effect this occupation continues, and is extended, not only will a considerable piece of countryside previously unspoiled be despoiled in future, but in fact quite a large area will be denied to the public.
More than two years after the end of the war we have not yet received the White Paper on the land requirements of the Services, and agitation, protests, unrest and disturbances are going on all over the country about these requisitions by the Services, and their ambitions for the future. At the moment, the Armed Forces are holding on to more than 1 million acres of land, in comparison with 310,000 acres which they held 10 years ago. They have more than three times the amount of land they had in the normal period between the wars.
I know my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will reply that these demands by the Services are at present under consideration by the Committee on Services Land Requirements, and that the Minister can do nothing until he has received the recommendations of that committee and considered them. Furthermore, he will say that there will be opportunity for inquiries, protests, local inquiries, and so on. I warn him that if this occupation, if these ambitions of the Services to take over these areas on Cannock Chase are permitted by his Department, there is going to be most serious opposition from all concerned in the West Midlands. Quite certainly the opposition of the local authorities concerned will be aroused, and public opinion will be inflamed over a wide area. The West Midlands is a heavily congested urban area, in which there are very few bits of open countryside. It has suffered a great deal in the past from

despoliation of the countryside, the dereliction of land, and indiscriminate grabbing of sites by industrialism—industrialism in its broadest sense. I hope that if he has not already paid a visit to the Black Country, he will shortly do so, in order to view the effects of industrialism and the dereliction of land in that part of the country. People in this heavily industrialised area have very few parts of the countryside which are beauty spots and natural amenities easily accessible, and available to them outside the urbanised and suburbanised areas, but Cannock Chase is one of them. Cannock Chase is a great area of wild life and natural countryside that has hitherto been unspoiled, and it is surrounded by these great urban areas. Bearing that in mind, I hope that my hon. Friend and his Ministry will stand firm, will dig in their toes, and resist at all costs encroachments upon this land and attempts to deny public access to it, from whatever quarter these threats may come.

8.11. p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Although my knowledge of this matter is by no means as intimate as that of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), I represent a constituency which was formerly part of the county of Stafford, and which borders on the Black Country, I agree that the hon. Member in no way overpaints the picture of the congestion of the West Midlands That vast conurbation which may be said to extend from east of Birmingham until one reaches the westerly confines of the Black Country at Stourbridge, or thereabouts, and advances northwards to Wolverhampton. The hon. Member is right in saying that there is no true open space for the Black Country and the area to the north with the exception of Cannock Chase. In Birmingham we have the very beautiful Sutton Coldfield Park, which is north of the city.

Mr. Cecil Poole: The hon. Member says that in Birmingham they have the beautiful Sutton Coldfield Park. That park is in the Royal town of Sutton Coldfield, in which I have the honour to live, and not in Birmingham.

Mr. Roberts: I can assure the hon. Member that I do not intend to go poaching. I have no idea of annexing the royal borough. I should have said that by the kindness and good will of the inhabitants of the royal borough, we are


allowed, for a modest charge, to disport ourselves in Sutton Park, where they go for nothing. But after all, permission for us to do so at 2d. per head is never refused, and I feel that the ancient borough will always be kind enough to extend to us the privilege we enjoy at that modest figure. So we have Sutton Park in the sense that we enjoy it. The Black Country further west is worse off. Cannock Chase is really the only spot to which the people there can go until one goes westwards to the Wyre Forest and Kinver Edge.
This matter raises a very important and difficult question of policy. Everywhere one finds demands from the Services, which I suppose might be said to be of two kinds, one for large areas suitable for modern military or Air Force training, the other for areas not so large, but which are eminently suitable for weekend camps or Saturday afternoon exercises of Territorials. No sane man would want to do anything to increase the problems of the Services which, in this overcrowded country, are difficult enough without being made more difficult. The plea I would put forward is that we should not be content with the present Committee, which I rather suspect of considering each case as it comes up. I feel that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning should try to get together with the Services and review the problem of defence in relation to amenities as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford would not desire, any more than I do, to be narrow-minded, and if there really is a national necessity, we shall bow to it at once. I am bound to say, however, that at the moment I fear that consideration may be a little perfunctory, and may be limited to the consideration of each proposal as it comes forward.
I feel that if the whole proposals, the whole programme or plan of the Services, could be brought under review by the Services and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and, if need be, let the representatives of local authorities be heard on these important matters, a result might be obtained which would be more satisfactory, not merely to local opinion but to informed public opinion generally. If I may give one illustration, the hon. Member referred to the case of Dovedale, and at first sight that did appear to be a very bad thing. I am bound

to say that on consideration it appears that the damage to amenity will be very little, if at all, more than was the case prewar when, in practice, we could all enjoy Dovedale. Here the matter appears to be more serious. The problem is one of real gravity to the West Midlands. I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the friendly criticisms of myself and the hon. Member for Stafford in the right spirit. I hope that the raising of this matter may lead to the larger question being more fully considered by all concerned.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: All hon. Members from Staffordshire, and a very large number of their constituents, would wish not only to associate themselves with what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) has said, but also to thank him for the energy with which he has prosecuted the matter and the skill with which he presented his case. He carried out his task so fully that there remains little for me to add. However, I welcome the distinction which the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) drew between the two kinds of Service needs. I would be the last to wish to cramp the Services and to prevent them from having land which they seriously need for the purpose of training. I recognise that before the war their training was hampered by the inadequacy of the spaces provided.
The hon. Member for Handsworth drew a distinction, very useful when discussing this question, between land needed for the purpose of local Territorial Army training and land needed for rather wider and more extensive national purposes. Those of our constituents who serve in the Territorial Army have as members of that Service, at least as high a degree of priority for making use of Cannock Chase for training, as they and other constituents of ours have for using it for pure pleasure and enjoyment. As the hon. Member for Stafford said, none would begrudge the Territorial soldier land near his home and convenient for weekend training; but in my submission the case of Government Departments taking large areas of land for purposes which have no immediate connection with the inhabitants of this highly urbanised area, is quite different from that of the Territorial using the land for training. It is wrong in an area such as this, where the average worker has


no open country, except Cannock Chase, to which he can go for his weekend pleasure, that he, the average man, should find himself debarred from large parts of the district simply because the Ministry of Supply find it convenient to test tanks there. It may be convenient for the Ministry of Supply to test tanks near where they are made, but it is far more inconvenient for our constituents to be deprived of their place of weekend pleasure and exercise. They cannot go to distant areas; the tanks can. It is wrong that large areas of open land should be occupied in the middle of this urbanised district.
If we take Walsall and the Black Country in which I am interested, what have they got? To the south there is Birmingham; to the west, the Black Country; to the north, a large mining area and a good deal of agricultural land; and immediately to the east of Walsall there lies the Sutton Coldfield area which is very agreeable though somewhat enclosed. The only open country is Cannock Chase. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that he will see that this matter is looked at from the point of view of the amenities and welfare of the people of the Black Country. I can only assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was not in any way exaggerating when he said that if the decision were taken which would deprive us and our constituents of the use of this land for our leisure purposes at weekends and on holidays, there would be a wave of protest both from the people and the local authorities concerned.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I hope that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and, still more, the Service Departments, will recognise that this Debate is only the first rumblings of a storm which will assuredly break over their heads if, as a result of the work of the Inter-Departmental Committee and the public inquiry which will follow, the people of the West Midlands realise that they are going to be deprived of a large area of Cannock Chase for their lawful purposes of recreation. This is an area, a large part of which is officially scheduled as a conservation area; that is to say, quoting from the official Report of the National Parks Committee;

It is an area whose contribution to the wider enjoyment of the countryside is so important that special measures should be taken to preserve its natural beauty and interest.
I am speaking, and very many of my hon. Friends are also speaking, not just as individuals, but with the backing of our local authorities, who have already registered official protests on this matter. Indeed, my own local authority, representing an urban population of 150,000, has gone further and has demanded that Cannock Chase should not merely be a conservation area, but that it should, in view of its significance for the district, be considered as a National Park. That is a measure of the importance with which we regard this problem. I want to quote again from the National Parks Committee's Report, which contains a most significant paragraph on the relation of Service land requirements to the problem of national parks and open spaces. In paragraph 151 of their Report, the Committee say:
It would be no exaggeration to say that the appropriation of a number of the particular areas now listed for acquisition by the Service Departments would take the heart out of the proposed National Park areas in which they are sited, and in certain cases render our proposals for the designation of individual National Parks entirely nugatory. Service Department occupation and use will also involve other subsidiary objections, such as the disturbance by gunfire of the peace and harmony of far wider areas than those actually appropriated, the disfigurement of the landscape by camps and military buildings, serious detriment to agriculture, interference with wild life, the inevitable defacement of the surface of the land and destruction of its vegetation by tracked vehicles, and the danger and annoyance occasioned on narrow roads by military traffic.
These remarks by an official Government department are no exaggeration of the problem with which we are faced in Cannock Chase. My hon. Friend mentioned the large urban area from which Cannock Chase is most easily accessible. According to a calculation which I have worked out concerning Staffordshire and Birmingham alone, in the county boroughs, the Metropolitan boroughs and the urban districts we have a population of 2,500,000, many of them living in the Black Country, that great conurbation which is one of the worst served areas in the whole of England and Wales for open spaces. Again, referring to the National Parks Committee's Report, the nearest areas to that conurbation which


are scheduled as national parks are the Peak District, 25 to 50 miles away, Brecon Beacon, 50 to 75 miles away, and North Wales, 50 to 75 miles away. These areas are of little use to an urban population for a Saturday afternoon or a week-end. The people in the Black Country want to get out to an area where they can get a decent view, some fresh air, and can enjoy the open space. To do that, they have to go to Cannock Chase; there is nowhere else to which many can go. That is why we regard this issue as of great importance.
A week or so ago, I caused considerable amusement in this House by, referring to a visit which I made one Sunday afternoon this summer to Cannock Chase, when the danger flag was flying. I should, perhaps, have added that it was a red flag. The immediate problem, quite apart from the future scheduling of Cannock Chase, is that, as a legacy from the wartime occupation by Service Departments, large areas of the Chase are now kept inaccessible to the public. In these areas there are considerable spaces with blocked roads which the public cannot enter. Then there are the firing ranges. The one to which I referred was supposed to be accessible on Sundays when no military operations were in progress. On the Sunday when I was there, it was quite clear that no training was taking place, but the danger flag was flying, and the "Keep Out" notices were all erected. Fortunately, the good sense of the public led them to ignore the notices, and to use the open space. It was quite clear to them that, although the flag was flying, there was no danger.
I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Service Departments, not only to the need for the derequisitioning of much of this area, but to the need to do it promptly, and to see that in all their necessary operations in the immediate future they take every step open to them to enable the public to make the maximum possible use of the area. I agree with the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) that we can discriminate between the legitimate use of part of this area for the purpose of training the Territorial Army and the wider Service requirements. But those who listened to

the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) will have realised that many of the demands of the Service Departments for this area are not connected with the Territorial Army at all, that they are tasks and problems for which the military authorities could use land far removed from a big urban area like this.
The Black Country grew up without the benefit of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The industrialists of those days laid the land derelict, and the result is that today there are vast areas of waste land, partly open space, but space which is of no use for recreation purposes, or for anything else until a tremendous remedial job has been done. Now that we have the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, we, look to it to restore the damage done to the Black Country in the past; we look to it to see that, perhaps, almost the last remaining piece of decent countryside adjacent to that area is at least preserved for the recreation of the people of that neighbourhood.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I am deeply conscious that it is a most unpopular thing to make a long speech on an Adjournment Motion on one of the very few occasions when Members and the officers of the House have a chance of going home decently early. It is for that reason that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) on getting his Adjournment Motion on an evening when there is so much time available. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, although I hope it will not be considered invidious of me if I say one word in support of my hon. Friend, especially when it is remembered that the greater part of Cannock Chase lies in what is the finest constituency in this country, although represented in this House by myself. Therefore, it is not invidious of me to say a word in support of my hon. Friend on this subject.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to be under no illusion about the volume of public feeling in this matter, and it is for that sole purpose that I have risen tonight. I do not know whether all the representations of the local authorities have reached him, but if they have, he will have seen that they are couched in no uncertain terms. I want him to bear in mind that the Service Departments invariably take the line of least resistance


and always choose the easiest place for their own particular purposes. If any of the Service Departments have any difficulty in finding alternative sites for some of the objects which they have sited on Cannock Chase, some of us will be perfectly happy to show them places which are equally suitable, although, perhaps not so convenient to them, but which will not be such a challenge to the rights and freedom of people who use Cannock Chase.
This area is used by ramblers from all over the Midlands. It is probably the most popular place in the Midlands, and, as other hon. Members have explained, it is not only the people in my constituency who make use of Cannock Chase. It is nothing short of a public scandal that the Service Departments today should seek to increase their hold in an area and acquire more land than they held even when this country was threatened in time of war. We invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us fairly quickly what is his decision in this matter, because we have waited a long time. It is time that a decision was taken so that the local authorities may know where they are, and the Parliamentary Secretary should now tell us that he is prepared to resist the demands of the Service Departments in this matter. We give him the full assurance that if they want anywhere else on which to site the things which they have sited on Cannock Chase, many of us will gladly help them to find such sites.

8.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): The House as a whole will be grateful, as I am sure will many local authorities, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) for having raised this subject. It is good and right that air and light should play on it, just as it is good and right that air and light in a physical sense should be available to the constituents of my hon. Friend in their hard earned hours of leisure. No one who knows the devotion of my right hon. Friend the Minister to the cause of National Parks, conservation areas, footpath preservation and allied subjects, could doubt his sympathy with any claim to those broad acres of moorland and heath which form the beauty and wealth of the English countryside. I can assure hon. Members of his anxiety, which is

shared by every member of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, to assist those who, lay their just claim to the enjoyment of those places.
The Debate has ranged wide, with reference to Dovedale, Upper Hulme and areas other than Cannock Chase. Perhaps I may be forgiven if, first, I say a few words on the general subject and then come down to the particular problem of Cannock Chase a little later on. I think it will be agreed that we must take this matter in due order. We must establish some principles and proceed from some accepted data. Some hon. Members, though none who have spoken tonight, think there should not be any Armed Forces. Obviously, we cannot share that view, and I am sure the majority of the House agree with me on that. We must assume that there are to be Armed Forces, and we must also assume that there are to be efficient Armed Forces. If there are to be efficient Armed Forces, they must have a training ground. Many hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, are anxious that the Armed Forces shall remain very small in number. That is a common view. The smaller they are in number the more vital it is that they should be efficient, and if they are to be efficient they must train with modern weapons. It is a commonplace to say that modern weapons are very destructive. They are destructive over an increasingly wide area, a much wider area than in prewar times. Therefore, we cannot juggle with this problem. We cannot push the Forces about from place to place. We have to take a fair view and a broad view, and if we are, as I hope, good administrators, we have to set up appropriate and efficient machinery of allocation which will take into account all the interests involved. They are many—amenities, agriculture, forestry, industry, building. That is exactly what we have done.
We have brought about, and there is now in existence, the Services Land Requirement Committee, on which all relevant Ministries are represented. That Committee is considering many matters, and at this very moment it is considering the matter which tonight is under debate. It is a Committee that can take a broad view. It is right, I think, that the chairman of it should be representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning,


because the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is in this matter, to some extent, a disinterested Ministry, and in so far as it is interested, it is interested because it is sympathetic with the views of my hon. Friend. I admit frankly that I am in some difficulty. Having set up that Committee, to which I shall refer in greater detail in a few minutes, it would not be right, it would not be good administration, it would not be courteous, for me to forejudge the issue. I have to bear in mind something similar. It is possible—by no means improbable—that, arising out of discussions now going on, there will be a public inquiry. It would not be right that, during that public inquiry, I should be quoted as having expressed with too great emphasis this view or that.

Mr. H. Roberts: Does the Committee merely consider a specific case as it arises, as this one; or does it keep all the requirements of the country as a whole in review, as, I suggest, it should?

Mr. King: That is the point I was about to moot. I want to deal at some length with the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I say, first that I think there has been to some extent unnecessary publicity—unnecessary scares—over a number of areas which, in fact, will probably not stand a very great chance of ever being required at all. The procedure, which must be regarded as being of importance, is this. The sponsoring Department, the War Office, or one of the Service Departments, or the Ministry of Supply—puts in its application to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, without comment, passes that claim on to the local authorities. It gets back from the local authorities their comments, and at that point the claim goes to the Committee. It is inevitable that at the moment it reaches the local authorities there should be publicity. In many cases there is publicity before the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has a chance to make up its mind, or before the matter has gone to the Committee.

Mr. C. Poole: Do we understand that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is purely a post office in this matter, to receive a demand from a Service Department, and to push it out to the local authorities? It seems to me fantastic that

the Ministry of Town and Country Planning should function in that way without being in a position to express any opinion.

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish, he will see that that supposition is wholly untrue. The local authorities then return the application with their comments. It is at that point that it goes on to the Committee. With the local authorities' recommendations it is then possible for the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to consider the thing as a whole, and then its responsibility begins. It cannot begin, however, until the Ministry—I think this is fair administration—has in front of it the views of the local authorities.

Mr. Swingler: I should like to get the procedure perfectly clear, because there is a good deal of misapprehension about the procedure and about the point at which decisions are taken. What I should like my hon. Friend to explain is this. Does the Minister consider the question, whatever demand is put forward by the Service Departments, or whatever is the particular matter which has gone to the Services Land Requirements Committee, or does he pass his requirements to that Committee before he has considered what is his policy? Is it a fact that the Minister of Town and Country Planning does not consider what are his views or policy about the claims of the Services for land until some recommendation has been made by the Committee?

Mr. King: That is not so. The Chairman of this Committee is a representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The Committee, having reported under his chairmanship, with the other Ministries also represented, the report comes back to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. At that point the Minister comes in. It goes to the Committee, and it comes back to the Minister. We are all aware, and no one can be more aware than our Ministry, of the extreme difficulty of considering this problem area by area. That is a major drawback to my mind. At this point, we must mention the production of the White Paper on the Services Land Requirements. It is known by the House that that White Paper has been in preparation for some time. We may seem open to criticism because it has not been produced before, but we must bear in


mind the immense variations which have taken place in the size, composition and disposition of the Armed Forces in the last two years. Anyone who considers this question must have some data about the Armed Forces. If is only very recently that we have been in a position to give the information at our disposal.

Mr. William Shepherd: Then, why is it that this White Paper has been promised since last February, and, as each month has gone by, hon. Members who are looking forward to its publication have not found it available?

Mr. King: The hon. Member will be aware that the composition of the Armed Forces has only very recently been finally determined. The production of that White Paper is now very close indeed. It is, in fact, in draft.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Does the White Paper contain the decisions on all of these areas? Will it give a decision in regard to Cannock Chase?

Mr. King: The White Paper will not do that. It will be an overall review of the total land requirements of the Services. It is only when that is done that it becomes simpler to consider the requirements area by area. Perhaps I may refer more directly to Cannock Chase. I agree with much that has been said on this subject. I agree that the Midlands have a very special claim. It is a conservation area, although I would point out that there are 52 conservation areas. It is not to be confused with a wild life conservation area, which is something quite different. I agree that the Chase is one of the few pieces of amenity land to which the Midland wage earners have access. They are less fortunately placed than the wage earners in many other parts of the country, and it is right, therefore, that we should give them special sympathy. I have a word of comfort for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I can assure him that the 1,858 acres are not the thin end of the wedge, as he described it. We hope—indeed, I am sure, that this will happen—that the increase in amenity which he seeks will take place. But we must not fall into the error of supposing that one ammunition boot, resting on amenity land, is necessarily an offence to that area. It may be, and probably is, but there is the possibility that it may not

be. There is a considerable difference, for instance, between a piece of land reserved for dropping atomic bombs and a piece of land reserved for very occasional use by the Territorial Army. It is not only whether Armed Forces use the land; it is how they use it, and when. In considering this matter we must keep that distinction in mind.
There are 30,000 acres in Cannock Chase, and 15,000 of them are relatively undeveloped. Let us get down to facts and figures. Of these 15,000 acres, 1,858 are now in use by Government Departments. These 1,858 are divisible into four main areas. Four hundred and eighty-five are at Rugeley, and are in use for general infantry training by the Territorial Army. They deny to nobody the use of the land. They are seldom there, and today they are very few; they constitute what I would describe as a small interference with, amenity. There are also 518 acres on Rugeley Range, which is a small arms range, also for the Territorial Army. It is not frequently used. Access need not be denied, save on the rare occasions when firing is actually going on. There are 395 acres in Cannock Chase itself. They are used as a tank training ground and a vehicle proving establishment. One or two tanks may use that ground, under present arrangements, for some 30 days in the year. Here, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) fell into an error. There need be no denial of access to the public here, although I will not say that there is no infringement of amenity. I do not like tanks; I think they are an infringement, but I would describe this infringement as being of a medium character.

Mr. W. Wells: Does my hon. Friend suggest that while tanks and, possibly, new types of weapons are being tested, the public will be allowed access to that area?

Mr. King: I said that the tanks would use this land for about 30 days in the year. Out of these 1,858 acres we are now down to the last 450 acres. They are being used as a demolition area, and there is an explosives school there. Here, we are dealing with an area of major controversy—what I might call an explosive controversy. In so far as the Army use the land the condition of tenure is similar


to that for the Rugeley range. But that area is largely under the control of the Air Ministry. I wish that were not so, but I can give my hon. Friend this assurance—and I choose my words with care—that the Air Ministry will do everything in their power to find an alternative. If my hon. Friend, or any other Member, can suggest any constructive alternative, I hope he will do so. I cannot say absolutely that we shall succeed, but we shall try very hard.
To sum up: at the very worst 1,858 acres are now used by Government Departments in one way or another. That is one-eighth of the aera of Cannock Chase, and I hope that the one-thirty-secondth that is in dispute will revert to its proper use. I give the pledge that if

substantial dissatisfaction remains when we have the machinery and it has produced its proper and final recommendations, there is, as a last resort, a public inquiry. Finally, I want the House to feel—because I know that this is a difficult subject—that we at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are deeply interested in it. Perhaps I might add a personal note. I have lived all my adult life in the countryside and on the edge of a chase in which some of my happiest hours were spent, and as that is typical of nearly all of those concerned in our Ministry, we are determined and desire to bring about the relief of these areas as soon as possible.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Nine o'Clock.